Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Opera

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research he has conducted into the popularity of opera; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Opera in this country continues to attract an unprecedented degree of public interest and support. Recent research published by the Arts Council claims that 2.8 million—or more than 6 per cent.—of the adult population attend opera performances.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the orchestra of English National Opera, which at the Olivier awards ceremony received the award for outstanding achievement in opera? Does not that demonstrate that although British opera receives a limited subsidy, there is extremely good value for the taxpayer?

Mr. Sproat: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the ENO on its award last night; it does marvellous work.

Mr. Sheldon: Yes, but given that there is far more interest in opera as a result of a number of activities over the past couple of years, is not it fitting that there should be greater recognition of that interest, both by the Department and by the Arts Council, in terms of funding?

Mr. Sproat: Opera gets a great deal of support already—£40 million from the various Arts Councils around the country. That is well merited, but it is a substantial sum.

Mr. Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why opera is so popular is that it is funded by the rest of us mugs called taxpayers? If people who went to the opera had to pay the full cost, half of them would not go.

Mr. Sproat: In fact, we are lucky in this country in that a lot of the funding for opera comes from partnership deals—from sponsorship from business, in which we lead the world. The prices of a growing number of opera companies, such as English Touring Opera, are extremely reasonable.

Mr. Fisher: What are the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doing to back up their congratulations with some action? Why is not the Minister

helping local authorities to support the excellent education and opera schemes in which most companies are engaged? Why is not he helping local authorities to back excellent touring opera companies, such as the City of Birmingham Touring Opera, Music Theatre Wales or Opera Factory? What is he actually doing? Why is not he even talking to the opera world to discuss the benefit of the schemes—as the Labour party is, with an opera seminar next Monday? Will he stop just talking about opera and use the power that he and his right hon. Friend have to do something to back opera?

Mr. Sproat: I have already said that we are doing a great deal to back opera. Through the various Arts Councils, we are giving £40 million. If any member of the opera community wishes to discuss matters further with me, I shall be delighted.

BBC Charter

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met the Director General of the BBC to discuss the renewal of the charter.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I met the Director General of the BBC on 28 February, when we discussed the BBC's plans for its future commercial activities.

Mr. Martin: At his next meeting with the director general, will my right hon. Friend ask him what is the sense of spending fee payers' money on expensive advertising—on hoardings in tube stations and in newspapers, for example—for particular television channels or radio stations? Will my right hon. Friend comment to the director general that such advertising seems an activity more appropriate for the commercial sector, which the BBC may one day join, and that while the BBC is a public sector broadcasting organisation, it does not seem an appropriate way in which to spend money that fee payers sometimes find it difficult to pay?

Mr. Brooke: I think that I shall see the chairman of the BBC earlier than I shall next see the director general. Whichever of them I meet, I will certainly ensure that I include the subject on the agenda.

Ms Eagle: In considering the future of the BBC charter, will the Secretary of State bear in mind how irritating it was for those of us who were attempting to watch the historic victory of the English test team last week to have our viewing constantly interrupted by advertisements between each over? In considering the renewal of the charter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that large numbers of people who like to watch sport want to do so uninterrupted by such advertisements? What will he do to ensure that great national events are not confined to minor satellite channels, so that we can all enjoy the drama—be it the English test team or Wimbledon or any other national sporting event?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady will know that the Select Committee on National Heritage is exploring that very issue. There is no question but that the amount of sport being broadcast has greatly increased over recent years. The items that should be subject to the rules were discussed with everybody and agreed at the time of the Broadcasting


Act 1990. I take the hon. Lady's point and, as I say, I shall be reflecting on the report that the Select Committee will make shortly.

Mr. Maclennan: With respect to the commercial activities to which the Secretary of State referred, which the BBC has described in its document on fair trading as supportive of, and complementary to, its public service commitment, does the right hon. Gentleman view the revenues generated from commercial activities as additional to those generated by licence fees?

Mr. Brooke: Of course I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Indeed, such revenues have always been in addition to the licence fee. The BBC has also made it clear, however, that it will be using the profit from its commercial activities to advance the commercial programme in which it is engaged abroad.

Mr. Gale: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Director General of the BBC to discuss the renewal of the charter, will he remind him that we look to the BBC to maintain the highest possible standards of journalism and broadcasting? In that context, will he draw the attention of the director general in particular to the largely synthetic row that one section of the BBC has sought to generate over the D-day celebrations? Will he remind him that there are many elderly soldiers, sailors and airmen in the country who are looking forward to the 50th anniversary of D-day to do two things: to commemorate those who lost their lives and to celebrate a great and glorious victory?

Mr. Brooke: I did not see the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am conscious that it is the subject of a debate at present. I sincerely hope that the BBC, as is generally the case, reflects opinion throughout the country.

BBC (Regional Autonomy)

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the autonomy of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom within the BBC.

Mr. Brooke: Since the beginning of 1993, I have received 45 letters about the autonomy of the BBC regions. The BBC's regional policies were also mentioned in a small number of the 6,000 responses to the Government's consultation document on the future of the BBC.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State share my great concern and the concern of others about the strong centralising tendency currently prevalent in the BBC? That is evidenced, first, in the centralisation of certain functions, which makes it difficult for the BBC in Wales and in other national regions to make discretionary choices on the nature of programmes and, secondly, in the imbalance of funding of network programmes. I believe that 3 per cent. of network programme funding is spent in the national regions, which serve 17 per cent. of the population. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that when the White Paper appears, there will be measures in it and in legislation, including the charter, to reverse that centralising trend?

Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of the views that have been advanced by the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, which, to some extent, the hon. Member's comments reflect. The director general made it clear in a speech on 24

March that he was concerned to increase the amount of regional production throughout the country. At the same time, however, he said that he did not believe in quotas, which he thought would be potentially too inflexible.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC in Cardiff has a high degree of autonomy? Is he further aware that more money is spent on programmes specifically for the Welsh than on comparable programmes for Scotland and in the three BBC regions? Is he also aware that more money is spent on television in Wales by the BBC than is collected in licence fees paid by the people of Wales?

Mr. Brooke: Being familiar with the Broadcasting Campaign for Wales, I am also familiar with some of the counterpoints. However, as someone who is half Welsh I would not in any way want Wales to be denied its proper share. The director general has said that he is considering the issue on a national basis.

Mr. Maxton: When giving evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage, both the director general and the chairman of the BBC promised that they would devolve management and programme making to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that pledge and ensure that it is written into the charter when he renews it?

Mr. Brooke: Given that the director general and, according to the hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the BBC have made that promise, and as these are management matters under their control, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with what has already been said. However, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the White Paper will touch on the subject.

Outdoor Education Centres

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress being made in establishing an accreditation system for outdoor education centres.

Mr. Sproat: The activity centres accreditation committee, established by the English tourist board, has drawn up a draft code of practice for outdoor activity providers, is now devising guidelines for individual activities and is considering appropriate inspection arrangements.

Mr. Jamieson: How does the Minister intend to ensure that outdoor education centres that are accredited by the English tourist board operate the highest levels of safety, with staff competent to undertake potentially hazardous activities? In particular, how will the centres be inspected to ensure that they are not putting children's lives at risk?

Mr. Sproat: The central answer to the hon. Gentleman's important question is that the Health and Safety Executive will be monitoring centres over the next two years at the rate of 100 a year. The precise monitoring arrangements are currently being considered by the ACAC.

Television Licences

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from holiday parks and the tourist industry generally about the cost of television licences.

Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend has received representations from 27 right hon. and hon. Members and seven letters from others.

Mr. Field: May I declare an interest in this matter? It has come to my attention that Lewis Bullard, the secretary of the National Association of Holiday Centres, has written to my hon. Friend making three points—first, that the industry is seasonal; secondly, that most families go on holiday together and therefore do not watch their televisions at home; and thirdly, that, as hosts provide entertainment for their guests, they do not necessarily watch television in the holiday centres.
Taken together, the Select Committee proposals and the EC distance selling directive have caused great consternation within the industry and we look to the Minister to reassure those involved in it.

Madam Speaker: Did the Minister find a question in all that?

Mr. Sproat: I did, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am delighted, because I did not.

Mr. Sproat: On my hon. Friend's first point, I agree that the Select Committee recommended that hotels with more than 50 rooms should pay for each television set thereafter. The same applies to holiday homes and caravan parks. I emphasise that that is the Select Committee recommendation, not the Government's. We are extremely conscious of the need not to place any additional burdens on the businesses described by my hon. Friend. On the question of the EC distance selling directive, the Government are wholly opposed to that directive and will do everything that they can to stop it.

Team Sports

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the importance of team sports.

Mr. Sproat: On 16 February, I hosted a seminar on team sports which was attended by about 25 people from the worlds of sport and education. Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received about 70 letters on this issue.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that team sports should be encouraged because they improve the health of participants, can be character-building and, in school holidays, may discourage young people from a life of crime? Does he further agree with the old adage:
Mens sana in corpore sano"?

Mr. Sproat: My response to my hon. Friend's Latin quotation is, "Rem acu tetigisti." I agree strongly with what he said in English.

Ms Hoey: Will the Minister confirm that, in talking about team sports he is not—as has commonly been represented in the newspapers—talking about male-only sports? Is not he also referring to the value of other sports

that are played by many women in this country—especially women's cricket? Does he agree that it is not a matter of team sports versus individual sports? We should be talking about and encouraging sport for all and ensuring that schools can give young people those opportunities.

Mr. Sproat: I agree entirely with what the hon. Lady has said about sport for girls and women. I shall do everything that I can to see that that approach is put into practice. I hope that, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, the we can devise a means whereby more team games are played, although not to the exclusion of individual games.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that British sport is highly regarded in all parts of the world? It is—[Interruption.] I accept that there are one or two exceptions. Sport provides an opportunity for us to encourage visitors from other countries to come here to watch football matches, tennis tournaments or whatever. When my hon. Friend next talks to the relevant authorities, will he see what can be done to encourage a greater marketing effort on behalf of sport in Britain? Will he also encourage international events to be held in this country?

Mr. Sproat: I shall draw my hon. Friend's important remarks to the attention of the British Tourist Authority and the governing bodies, but I have no power to make those bodies spend any money on their own marketing.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that in most sporting circles his recent emphasis on core team sport is considered to be too narrow and restrictive? Instead, he should be fighting his corner to ensure that sport receives at least two hours a week as an integral part of the national curriculum, so that a variety of sports, both team and individual, can be played. The hon. Gentleman's pious hope that the 5,000 playing fields sold off by the Government should be bought back is an impossible dream as most of them are buried in concrete. Instead, the hon. Gentleman should be pursuing a policy with the Department for Education to scrap circular 909, which allowed the playing fields to be sold off in the first place. There should be a moratorium on the selling-off of playing fields so that schools and the
community can benefit from playing fields in future.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the availability of playing fields. My views, in so far as they were correctly reported, do not include buying back the same land; obviously, as the hon. Gentleman said, much of it has been built upon. Instead, we should seek to increase the number of playing fields in urban areas. That should be encouraged. I hope that we shall encourage both team and individual sport in our schools.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the English cricket team is to win in Barbados more often than once every 59 years, and if the English women's cricket team is to win the world cup again, it will be necessary to preserve existing playing fields and provide more, and also to provide the necessary funding to ensure that playing fields are in good enough condition for school pupils to play cricket on them?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I agree with him.

BSkyB Programming

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to require that BSkyB is subject to the same requirements to broadcast British-made productions as the rest of commercial television; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: BSkyB is already subject to the requirement in the EC broadcasting directive to reserve a majority proportion of transmission time for European works where practical, and to achieve this proportion progressively.

Mr. Mullin: But why are the Government making no attempt to enforce the regulations? Is not that extremely damaging to Britain's domestic television? Is it part of the pay-off for the Murdoch empire's support for the Conservative party over a long period? That is the only explanation that I can think of.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his observation that the Government are making no attempt to enforce the provisions of the broadcasting directive. Under that directive we require broadcasters to provide us with the material that is necessary for us to report to Brussels what the proportions are. We are engaged in specific dialogue with the broadcasters who have not met the provisions of the directive in order to verify their progress in connection with it. We are also conscious that the Commission will be asking us the same questions.

Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have to watch satellite television because the very hilly nature of my constituency means that they cannot pick up proper signals from the BBC and other commercial channels? Does he agree that it is wholly unacceptable that they should have to pay the full licence fee even though the BBC accepts that they have a substandard signal? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter on my behalf?

Mr. Brooke: That question has been raised with me by another hon. Member who was in the Chamber a while ago, but who has now left. I have been willing to explore that subject with the relevant bodies in the past.

Ms Mowlam: Will the Secretary of State consider waiting until the Commission has made a decision, but will he assure the House that, in his cross-media review, he will include regulation across satellite, terrestrial and cable, so that—whether in terms of production, watersheds or current affairs programmes in peak time such as "World in Action"—a level playing field exists as between the different media where regulation is needed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if he does not do that, we will end up with another short-term, bungled, botched job like the Broadcasting Act 1990?

Mr. Brooke: Seductive though the hon. Lady is, I will not be tempted to explore what the conclusions of the cross-media review will be when we are scarcely halfway through it. As for the hon. Lady's other stricture, I agree with Sam Rayburn that the three wisest words in the English language are, "Wait a minute." The hon. Lady wanted me to wait a year and I am not sure whether the technology will afford us that degree of luxury.

Tourist Industry (Deregulation)

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on deregulating the tourist industry.

Mr. Sproat: My inquiry into regulatory burdens on the tourist industry identified some 90 regulations which the industry claimed were burdensome. We are pursuing each of those regulations with the relevant Departments.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the Somerset hotelier who had the extraordinary experience of witnessing three fire officers in one room arguing about the best fire precautions for it? Can my hon. Friend assure me that the deregulation initiative will change not only regulations but attitudes in public service?

Mr. Sproat: As usual, my hon. Friend is extremely well informed about such matters. On that occasion, I believe that the argument centred on whether doors into bars or bedrooms should open inwards or outwards. We are concerned to ensure that such overlapping is brought to an end, thus ending some of the burdens on parts of our tourism industry.

Mr. Mandelson: Whatever benefits may be gained by the British tourist industry from the programme of events planned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day, does the Minister accept that frivolous trivialising events can play no part in a dignified tribute to those who lost their lives in the D-day landings? Will he therefore revise his plans in keeping with the views recently expressed to the Prime Minister by the Royal British Legion?

Mr. Sproat: It is very right and proper that we should commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-day. In doing that, we are commemorating the brave actions and deaths of those who fought on D-day. We are also commemorating the great good news that followed—the overthrow of the evil Nazi tyranny. It is not up to us to say how people around the country should commemorate those things. There should be serious and solemn events, and there will be. There will also be less serious and solemn events occurring around the country. We believe that a balance should be struck and that we are striking the right balance.

Mr. Elletson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although deregulation is the answer to many of the problems of the tourist industry, there are also areas where stricter regulations are needed? Will he therefore accept my constituents' thanks for the part that he played in ensuring that there are changes to the Use Classes Order to curb the widespread and unregulated growth in the number of Department of Social Security hostels in tourist areas?
Will he also tell the House when he expects to be able to announce details of a licensing scheme for such hostels?

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the use classes order. He is absolutely right; there are regulations that must stay. All that we are seeking to do is discover those regulations that place an unnecessary burden on the industry. We shall continue to retain the regulations that are valuable and to abolish the regulations that are not. The licensing that my hon. Friend mentioned is a matter for the Department of the Environment.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that we have two important tourist attractions in St. Helens, horse racing at Haydock park and rugby league at Knowsley road? Is he aware that one of the burdensome regulations placed on St. Helens rugby league club is the requirement in the Taylor report that the club spend substantial sums of money on improving its ground? Unlike football clubs, the rugby league club receives no assistance from organisations such as the Football Trust. Will the Minister accept my invitation to meet the board of directors of St. Helens rugby league club to find some way of assisting it to obey the instructions in the Taylor report?

Mr. Sproat: I saw St. Helens play Leeds the other day. I thought that they put up a terrific performance and were very unlucky not to win. I will be glad to speak to the directors of the club.

Film Industry

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with representatives of the film industry about promoting the film industry in Britain.

Mr. Brooke: Last year, I held a series of consultative meetings with all sectors of the United Kingdom film industry to review the state of the industry and hear their ideas about possible further action to raise the level of private investment in film production. I have also received numerous other representations. I shall announce the Government's conclusions as soon as practicable.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Impact initiative, which has received wide support from the film industry, to promote film-making in Britain. In considering the initiative, and in his wider discussions, will my right hon. Friend give full account to the calculation made by Impact that relatively modest fiscal changes could result in a big expansion of film-making in this country? Will he give every encouragement to the seven big American studios, which control 90 per cent. of cinema revenue in Britain, to make more films in this country, rather than just market United States-made films, as the British components of such films almost invariably result in a big improvement in their quality?

Mr. Brooke: I am aware of the proposals that underlie the Impact campaign; indeed, I have been in conversation with PACT—the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—as part of the review. Our preoccupation in the review is to ensure that we achieve what I will describe as the self-renewal of the industry, rather than simply giving it a quick fix. However, I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend about fiscal incentives. As for the American studios, I am delighted that this year some large budget films are being made here by the Americans. The film industry as a whole is profoundly encouraged by the signs of renaissance.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that while it must be nice to have large budget films being made here by American majors, it would be pleasant if we had one or two films made by the British? The British have the ability in writing, acting and directing. Would not it surprise everyone if the Minister were to highlight that by giving some support to this very hard-working and necessary industry?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady and I have regular exchanges on this subject across the Floor of the House. She does not always demonstrate total familiarity with the underlying support that the Government are giving. As for the British industry, I am delighted to say that 67 feature films were made last year compared with 47 the previous year, and the amount of money that was invested in those 67 films was £214 million, compared with £169 million a year earlier.

Arts (Suffolk)

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his assessment of the state of the arts in the county of Suffolk.

Mr. Sproat: It is for the Arts Council and regional arts boards to take the lead in making assessments of this kind. I understand that the Eastern Arts Board regards Suffolk as having a healthy and lively arts scene.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great local interest in the National Racing museum in Newmarket in my constituency, and in the Manor House museum in Bury St. Edmunds? Is he also aware that the renowned Bury St. Edmunds festival starts next month? Does he agree that, with the great flowering of interest in the arts in the past 10 years, it is now possible for people to see fine performances and to go to excellent museums, not only in the cities, but increasingly in rural areas?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate the Eastern Arts Board on what it has done towards achieving that splendid aim.

Brass Bands

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what strategy has been evolved for assistance to the brass bands which previously relied upon collieries, now closed, to support them.

Mr. Sproat: I have a keen interest in the brass band movement, including colliery bands, as an integral part of our artistic and cultural heritage. I recently had a valuable meeting with the British Federation of Brass Bands.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister harness his considerable enthusiasm to attacking the bumbling of the Department of Trade and Industry and the insensitivity of the Department for Education, whose policies are helping to destroy junior brass bands, which should be fostered? I do not need a public statement from him—just a hint that he will attack them in the background as he has done successfully with regard to team sports.

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his closing remarks and I congratulate him on the persistence and dedication with which he has pursued the question of the band in his constituency. On 18 February, I suggested to him six or seven ways in which he might advance the band. He may also care to have a word with the Voluntary Arts Network which might have some extra ideas, if not cash.
As for talking to the Department for Education and the Department of Trade and Industry, I will gladly pursue my usual friendly and genial conversations with them.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that all our hearts are warmed by the splendid sound of brass bands, just as they are by the British Army bands whose high standards of excellence are the envy of the world and who are trained at Kneller Hall, Twickenham? Will he draw the question of brass bands to the attention of the regional arts boards, and say that the whole House is behind them?

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind support which, given his marvellous musicianship, is particularly valuable. I will do as he says.

Mr. Skinner: Although the Minister may give his overall support to the idea of colliery brass bands, the truth is that, under the Coal Industry Bill, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation—the umbrella organisation which deals with colliery brass bands—has had its money reduced by 40 per cent. CISWO must remain intact to look after the brass bands. If the Government can find the money to subsidise opera, they should find the money to ensure that brass bands can continue in every coalfield.

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The future of CISWO and related matters are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), I will do everything proper that I can to see that brass bands continue and flourish.

Tourism

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to promote tourism in the midlands.

Mr. Sproat: Government support for tourism is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the English tourist board, support is also made available to the 11 regional boards, including the Heart of England and East Midlands tourist boards.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that overseas tourists should not confine their visits to London and that they should also visit the midlands? Does he further agree that attractions such as Alton Towers and the fine scenery around it in my constituency compare with anything in London?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I happily agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of Alton Towers, which has the highest number of visitors of any tourist attraction in the country. I also agree about the importance of getting tourists out of London.
My hon. Friend will be comforted a little to know that spending on promotion in the west midlands has been some £400,000 in recent years and exactly the same amount has been spent in the east midlands, contributing about 240,000 jobs in the surrounding areas. I agree strongly with what he says.

Sporting Clubs

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants have been made to sporting clubs for the coaching and incorporation of children of school age; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council provides support to sports clubs through its grants to various governing bodies of sport and is encouraging those bodies to focus their work on young people. The council also gives regional grants directly to clubs to assist them with junior sections.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members have always been keen supporters of team spirit, team work and team games because we know that that is the best way of handling the natural competitive instinctive in all children and adults as we go through life? Will he do all that he can to encourage clubs of every kind—rugby, cricket, hockey and the rest—to include teams of young players so that, if they cannot be coached in schools, they can be coached in clubs? Can we have teamwork between schools and clubs, which we do not have now?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Competitive games are valuable in teaching good sportsmanship, team spirit, dedication, losing gracefully and winning modestly. I shall do all that I can to inculcate that, both within governing bodies and between schools, governing bodies and clubs.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Health Service Trusts

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement about the level of funding made available to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of NHS trusts in 1993–94.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 21 February at column 13.

Mr. Hughes: May I take the matter a bit further? Given the large number of NHS trusts, investigation is sometimes needed in time to influence the results of a decision. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine whether funds are available not just to carry out the investigation but to do so quickly, which is what is needed in the case of Philip Harris house at Guy's hospital? If it is not used for the intended purpose, it will be a complete waste of £150 million of taxpayers' money.

Sir Peter Hordern: On the general point, the hon. Gentleman knows that hospital trusts are being investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the report is expected in the autumn. On the particular point that he raises, the Comptroller and Auditor General is shortly to reply to his letter and I hope that the response will arrive soon.

Local Authority Housing Departments

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been made available by the Public Accounts Commission to the National Audit Office to investigate the work of local authority housing departments.

Sir Peter Hordern: The audit of local authority housing departments is the responsibility of the Audit Commission and does not, therefore, come within the remit of the Public Accounts Commission.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pressing need for a further audit of local authority housing when, in Hackney, one local authority house in 11 is unlet and when, while it was under Labour control, large rent arrears in Brent reached 48 per cent?

Sir Peter Hordern: It sounds to me as though those are cogent points to put before the Audit Commission.

Mr. Soley: Would not it be a good idea to investigate authorities such as Westminster, and Government Departments, which have between 10 and 20 per cent. of their housing stock empty? Where those houses are sold on the private market, they depress the national economic recovery by depressing house prices. Is not there a strong case for investigating those public bodies—the Government and Westminster—which have such a bad record on keeping houses empty for political purposes?

Sir Peter Hordern: As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities are a matter for the Audit Commission. He is probably also aware that the National Audit Office frequently reports about housing matters to the Public Accounts Commission and the PAC makes reports thereon.

Arts Councils

Dr. Howells: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what provision is to be made for the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the performance of the new arts councils of England, Scotland and Wales.

Sir Peter Hordern: The draft financial memorandum for the new Arts Council for England provides that the statements of account will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In Scotland and Wales, negotiations are under way to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as the auditor of the new arts councils. Under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General will also be able to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which each of the councils has used its resources.

Dr. Howells: Will the Chairman communicate to the Comptroller and Auditor General the concern of many artists, writers and musicians that the regime of indecision and waste that has characterised so much of the work of the British Arts Council over the past 10 years is not replicated at regional level? Precious taxpayers' money should end up with artists, writers and musicians, not with those who make lucrative careers out of administering the arts.

Sir Peter Hordern: I will certainly communicate that to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me know whether there are specific matters that cause him concern, I shall refer those on, too.

Audit Procedures

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will liaise with Her Majesty's Government with a view to bringing forward proposals for a more effective audit of ongoing projects and activities of Government Departments and agencies.

Sir Peter Hordern: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 16 December at columns 764-65.

Mr. Cohen: As the new quangos spend vast amounts of public money with precious little accountability, should not there be tough new internal and external audit arrangements and, at the very least, a report on Departments' current policies in respect of these quangos, which spend unduly large amounts of public money?

Sir Peter Hordern: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office by long tradition never report on matters of policy, but do refer to matters when things have gone wrong—as they frequently have. Examinations of public corporations over the past 20 years have revealed many weaknesses and faults. Regrettably, the faults that the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to establish in present corporations are by no means unparalleled—they have gone on for a long time. I echo what the hon. Gentleman says, however, and I remind the House of what an excellent job the Comptroller and Auditor General does on these matters on behalf of the taxpayer and the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Hospitality Rooms

Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what new proposals he has for additional funding to change the use of rooms used for hospitality in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. A.J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Commission has received no proposals for additional funding for this purpose. I understand that the Catering Committee has no plans to reallocate the private dining rooms operated by the Refreshment Department.

Mr. Flynn: Would not it be beneficial for funds if the mean and spiteful proposal to ban journalists from the Terrace were replaced by a proposal to double the price of alcoholic beverages? The money received could be used both to benefit the health of Members and journalists and to improve the wages paid to our staff. It could also be used to answer a letter that I sent to the Catering Committee on 13 October asking for improvements in our facilities, not for those who spend every day here, but for the groups of pensioners and children from our constituencies who come here once in a lifetime—so that we can offer them the simple hospitality of a cup of tea.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has embraced a wide range of subjects in his supplementary question. The Catering Committee has made proposals to provide facilities in the visitors centre which could take over the


cafeteria off Westminster Hall, but those proposals depend on alternative facilities being provided to replace the lunch and other catering arrangements provided there now.
Staff wages in the House compare favourably with those in the private sector.

Disabled Visitors

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make financial provision available to improve facilities for disabled visitors to the House of Commons.

Mr. Beith: Following a report by an architect specialising in this subject, £250,000 was allocated for works in 1994–95. The Accommodation and Works Committee has approved an initial programme to improve facilities for disabled visitors and will examine further schemes contained in the report. Financial provision for future years has yet to be considered by the Finance and Services Committee and by the Commission.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that access for disabled people to the House of Commons is extremely limited? Given the widespread cross-party support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which is progressing through the House, would not it be ironic if the House itself remained so inaccessible to disabled people? Will he ensure that proper funds are available to make the House a model of accessibility for disabled people?

Mr. Beith: Yes, that is the objective of the Commission and the purpose of the report and proposals that we have been considering.

Members' Office Accommodation

Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what funding is being made available for the provision of office accommodation for hon. Members.

Mr. Beith: The agreed programme of works for 1994–95 includes £5 million for continued design and other preparatory work for the new phase 2 building.

Mr. Steen: There are more unoccupied bedrooms in the Palace of Westminster estate than there are in the Hilton hotel, Park lane. Of the 66 bedrooms in the Palace, only two thirds have been used in the past five years. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for those bedrooms to be converted into offices for hon. Members than to be left as bedrooms exclusively for the use of officials?

Mr. Beith: There are not 66 bedrooms, but 66 beds for the use of staff who are required to work during late sittings. Some of the beds are in dormitories which the hon. Gentleman might find do not compare very favourably with the accommodation in the Hilton hotel. The House has made a number of provisions for offices for hon. Members, including additional accommodation at Millbank, and of course the completion of the accommodation in the new building will ensure that all hon. Members who want a single room can have one.

Mr. Maxton: Is not it becoming clear that however much money this place spends on trying to improve facilities for hon. Members, we can never provide on this site a modern, democratic Parliament? Is not it time that the House of Commons Commission was given the job of examining the viability and cost of building a brand new Parliament outside London altogether?

Mr. Beith: Whatever the attractions of such a proposal, the Commission would certainly not embark upon examining it unless it was directed to do so by the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bearing in mind the fact that there are 19 bars in this establishment, is it really essential to take as another bar the Lady Members' Terrace Room, where lady Members have worked since 1945, from the days of Bessie Braddock?

Mr. Beith: That matter relates to the complex proposals by the Catering Committee which have yet to be debated in the House. I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to put her point when they are.

Constituents' Visits

Mr. Enright: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to arrange for a Commons official to be in charge of the arrangements for visits from Members' constituencies.

Mr. Beith: None, Madam.

Mr. Enright: Is not it time, therefore, that the Commission considered this question? Increasingly, our constituents wish to come here to see what is happening and that is causing considerable difficulty for hon. Members. It is not that hon. Members are unwilling to undertake the work, but it is becoming increasingly complex to arrange such visits. A central arranging point would greatly assist our constituents' understanding of the democracy that we serve.

Mr. Beith: I have some sympathy with that suggestion, but I think that it should be considered by the Administration Committee, to which I shall direct the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Day Nursery

Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he is now in a position to make a statement on the provision of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Beith: The Commission has now received the report of the survey of demand which was carried out under the supervision of the Administration Committee and has asked that Committee to make a report to the House.

Mr. Barnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 10 commercial organisations in the Palace of Westminster occupying 950 sq m and that the gymnasium covers 350 sq m? In addition, we have just heard about 60 bedrooms. In view of all that, surely we can move much more quickly towards the provision of day nurseries than we have moved hitherto.

Mr. Beith: The Administration Committee has carried out a survey of the likely demand for a nursery and the Commission has made known its view, in terms of its responsibility for the staff of the House, that, if a viable scheme can be devised, it would want it to go ahead. The Commission has asked the Committee to make a report to the House.

Visitors' Facilities

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received urging the provision of additional funds for providing facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Beith: None, since I last answered oral questions on this issue on 21 February, although early-day motion 793 has been drawn to my attention.

Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly seized of the fact that there is considerable concern in all parts of the House about the appalling facilities that we provide for our visitors. We call them "Strangers", not visitors, and we keep them standing outside in the most inclement weather. We treat them abysmally. This legislature is probably the worst in Europe in its treatment of visitors. When will something be done about the lack of facilities?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman must address his concern to the Committees that deal with these matters. Some of the problems about which he is concerned are addressed in the Catering Committee's report to which I referred earlier and which I expect to be debated in the House in due course.

Lavatories

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what funds have been made available to improve lavatory facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beith: The sum of £150,000 has been allocated for 1994–95 for the programme of lavatory refurbishment and a further £94,000 to provide new lavatory facilities for the disabled.

Mr. Greenway: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House welcome that news, as will visitors to the Palace of Westminster. Will the new lavatories be more obviously accessible to the public and be properly named—

Mr. Steen: Illuminated.

Mr. Greenway: Illuminated, as my hon. Friend says —so that visitors will be able to identify them easily?

Mr. Beith: I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of those responsible.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to take oral questions on Fridays.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Skinner: If the Lord President had been present earlier, he would have heard one or two comments about there being so many quangos in Britain today for which the Government are no longer accountable. There are 7,700 of them and they cost about £1,000 million a week. It would not be a bad idea if a Minister were made responsible for answering questions on Fridays about quangos and the use of taxpayers' money. We would then be able to ask all the questions that we are not allowed to ask the rest of the week.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman does not do badly on the first four days of the week.

Sir Anthony Grant: Since oral questions are about the most futile way of Parliament scrutinising the Executive, why not move all questions to Friday?

Mr. Newton: Probably because only the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be here to ask them.

Sittings of the House

Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to confine the sittings of the House to four days a week including one all-night sitting.

Mr. Newton: I have no plans to propose such an arrangement and I do not believe that I would receive much thanks if I did.

Mr. Steen: If we did sit all night one day a week, it would be possible to use some of the 66 beds mentioned earlier—two thirds of which have not been used for five years. Would not it be far wiser to convert those sleeping facilities into offices, so that hon. Members who are squashed together like sardines could enjoy better accommodation in the Palace of Westminster?

Mr. Newton: I will not attempt to embroider the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in response to a similar question earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has assiduously pursued his campaign and has already had
some exchanges with the House authorities. I know that they are further considering some of his points. In my judgment, it is right that the matter should be given further consideration.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Lord President give an assurance that if we are compelled to use those bedrooms, none of us will be forced to share one with the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) to save on expenses?

Mr. Newton: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman never sleeps.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hours the House sat in the 1992–93 Session; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79 and 1964–65.

Mr. Newton: In the 1992–93 Session, the House sat 1,983 hours and 48 minutes over 240 sitting days—an average of eight hours and 16 minutes per day. The equivalent figures for the 1978–79 Session were 878 hours


and 20 minutes over 85 sitting days—a daily average of 10 hours and 20 minutes. In the 1964–65 Session, the House sat 1,592 hours and two minutes over 177 sitting days—an average of eight hours and 59 minutes per day.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for those interesting statistics. Does he agree that we should amend the way in which we deal with legislation? Although much time is spent in debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we often exert little influence over the civil servants and Ministers who draft Bills. If we revised the way in which we tackle legislation, we might spend our time more productively.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that there might be ways in which the scrutiny of legislation can be improved, alongside a number of the improvements that have been made in recent years. Having been a Minister in various Departments, I can tell my hon. Friend that he should not

underestimate the effect that the probing of the House, both on the Floor and not least in Standing Committee, can have on Ministers and their officials.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware that nowadays, far from getting better scrutiny, more and more information is being hidden by Ministers, both by referring hon. Members to the heads of executive agencies and by saying that letters will be placed in the Library? That is a reversal of the democratic position and one that is becoming extremely dangerous and all too common.

Mr. Newton: I do not accept for one moment the suggestion that because the information in some of these cases comes from the person principally concerned with the day-to-day administration of the service, without in any way altering the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the overall delivery of that service, there is any kind of concealment. Of course, answers are made available, in a way for which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) pressed over a long period.

Bosnia

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about events in Gorazde and elsewhere in Bosnia over the past few days.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House on 12 April on the circumstances in which NATO aircraft, to protect. United Nations forces, had carried out close air support attacks on Bosnian Serb forces threatening UN personnel in Gorazde on the two preceding days. Following those attacks, efforts were made to achieve a ceasefire between the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Government forces as the prelude to a general political settlement. But by last Thursday, 14 April, the situation on the ground had deteriorated and a number of serious incidents occurred in and around Sarajevo and in other parts of northern Bosnia.
On Friday afternoon, 15 April, the Bosnian Serbs resumed their shelling of Gorazde. A patrol of British soldiers serving as joint commission observers at a Bosnian army location about 3 km north of the town became involved in an exchange of gun fire. One of them, Corporal Fergus Rennie, sustained a gun shot wound as a result of Bosnian Serb fire. A second soldier was less seriously wounded by shrapnel. Corporal Rennie was retrieved by helicopter and brought to Sarajevo, where, sadly, he subsequently died.
On Saturday 16 April, three Bosnian Serb tanks began firing on the hospital in Gorazde. General Rose called for close air support, which was approved by Mr. Akashi. Two Sea Harriers from HMS Ark Royal, and two American. A10 aircraft, were tasked with attacking the tanks. During a reconnaissance run, the Sea Harriers were attacked by a surface-to-air misile, which they managed to evade. At 4.45 pm local time, the Sea Harriers commenced a bombing run. A second surface-to-air missile was fired and hit the lead aircraft, which caught fire. The pilot, Lieutenant Nicholas Richardson, ejected and landed safely.
In an unrelated incident late on Saturday night, another British service man, Marine Timothy Coates, who was serving on attachment to the UNHCR in Sarajevo, was shot dead by personnel manning a Bosnian Government checkpoint in the city. He was off duty and wearing plain clothes at the time.
The House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the families of Corporal Rennie and Marine Coates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Both were brave men serving in Bosnia and trying to bring peace to that country. As the House will know, yesterday, Bosnian Serb forces advanced further on Gorazde, which is now virtually undefended. There are now no British military personnel in the town.
The events of the past few days represent a serious setback for the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and will have grim consequences for the people of Gorazde. There is a tendency in some quarters to criticise the efforts of the senior UN personnel in Bosnia, including Mr. Akashi and General Rose, for failing to deal with the situation. In my view, such criticism is unjustified. Mr. Akashi, General Rose and their UN colleagues have achieved as much as was humanly possible, given the UN military forces available to them and the mandate under which they operate. They deserve our full support.
The United Nations troops in Bosnia are not, and never have been, intended to be a war-fighting force. They were sent to Bosnia for purposes of humanitarian relief and to give time for the peace process to bring results. Some have had quite unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved by the use of air power alone, or by ground forces that are not equipped or organised to operate in a combat role.
A vicious civil war is taking place in Bosnia with a total of almost 200,000 heavily armed Bosnian Serb, Croat, and Muslim forces. There are at present only 15,000 UN peacekeeping forces on the ground. The House is well aware that there has been no support from any quarter for deploying the large UN or NATO combat army that would be needed for the UN to be sure of imposing its will on the warring factions. In the absence of such support, it is quite unreasonable to berate the UN in Bosnia for having been unable to stop the fighting.
General Rose did recently call for more troops to assist in his peacekeeping role throughout Bosnia. The United Kingdom took the lead in co-ordinating an international response, which pledged those additional troops. I have to inform the House that, of the 8,000 troops pledged, only the battalion group promised by the United Kingdom and 300 others, totalling 1,200, have so far arrived.
The United Nations will now need to give careful thought to the implications of current events in Gorazde. Both the United Nations and others who call for action must avoid rhetoric and resolutions that cannot be enforced. There must be a proper assessment by the UN of its continuing ability to carry out the mandate, of what it can do to strengthen that ability and the peace process in general, and of the degree of co-operation that it can expect from the various Bosnian factions. It must also assess the level of risk to the safety of UNPROFOR troops, for which we all have an abiding responsibility.
Events in Gorazde represent a serious setback. It is important to remember that over large parts of Bosnia the UN has been successful in implementing an effective ceasefire and the population are able to resume something like normal life. Sarajevo is no longer under artillery attack. Those achievements are indeed creditable and we continue to give our full support to our troops, and other UN troops in the field, and to their commanders.

Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. This is a matter of great concern to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Opposition Members are glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not currently contemplate the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia.
Disappointed and saddened though we are by the Gorazde tragedy and its terrible, awful consequences, we ought not—as the Secretary of State implied—to let it dominate our thoughts and actions completely. It is worth recalling and emphasising that the peace is still holding in much of Bosnia and that, in central Bosnia, the Croats and the Bosnian Government troops are no longer fighting. It is also worth emphasising that there is some peace in Sarejevo, however tentative, and that life there is far better than many of us would have dared to contemplate a month ago.
I am proud of the contribution that our British troops have made in Bosnia. Let me place on record the Opposition's deepest sympathy for the families of soldiers who have given their lives in the conflict there. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]


Will the Secretary of State acknowledge, however, that in a subtle way the mandate of the UN troops needs to be redefined? Is it not the case that that mandate was initially for the provision of a purely humanitarian aid delivery, but has now developed into a mandate for a peace support operation?
Are not the military handicapped by a lack of political direction and strategy on the part of the UN and NATO? Lieutenant-General Rose suggested the role that should be played when he pointed out that he would need more ground troops if the policy of peace support was to be effective. We believe that his request for extra troops was justified, but were disappointed, initially, by the Government's slow reaction. We acknowledge, however, that the Government had a change of heart following the marketplace disaster, and I acknowledge the Secretary of State's efforts in persuading our countries to earmark troops for Bosnia.
Will the Secretary of State enlighten the House on the numbers of troops? What has happened to the troops from other countries, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman recently told the House were to be sent to Bosnia? Where have they gone? Of the 8,000 troops promised, only 1,200 have arrived.
On his visits to the United States last week, did the Secretary of State discern any change of policy by the United States Administration? In particular, will he comment on reports that the United States has blocked the request, made at the United Nations, to send an additional 8,500 peacekeepers to Bosnia and has approved only 3,700 —many fewer than General Rose requested?
Is the problem in the United States with the Administration or with Congress? What steps are the Secretary of State and the European Union taking to try to reverse that decision? Has any attention been paid to replacing Nordic troops in Macedonia with American troops, thus releasing the Nordic troops for action in Bosnia proper?
After Gorazde, we must ensure that we can reassert the authority of the United Nations, because it is in the interests of Britain and of the rest of the world to do so. In fighting to try to re-establish the authority of the United Nations, we are trying to do something to secure the long-term interests of Britain and Europe.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the efforts of General Rose, of British forces and of UNPROFOR as a whole. He is correct to emphasise that much has been achieved by the United Nations in other parts of Bosnia, and we do not want to lose the benefits of that hard work.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the UN's mandate has developed from being purely humanitarian to assisting in peacekeeping, wherever that has proven possible. It is very important, however, to draw a line between that kind of mandate and any possibility of the United Nations adopting a combat role, which, as he knows, would not be acceptable or consistent with a bipartisan approach. I know that he shares that view.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the efforts of the British Government in responding to General Rose's request for more troops and the lead that we took in the United Nations in co-ordinating that effort and in sending additional troops. He asked why so few have so far arrived

from other countries. In part, that is, I am sure, because of genuine logistical problems in getting them to Bosnia from various countries around the world, but it will be important that all countries that have pledged additional troops make every effort to send them. The United States has offered logistical support for those who might require it and that should be borne in mind.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the United States Administration and Congress. Congress, not the Administration, has blocked the full funding of additional troops to Bosnia. I know that the President and his Administration are doing their best to persuade Congress to release the necessary funding, and we naturally hope that they will succeed in the near future. The United States has also indicated its willingness to ensure that some of the Nordic troops in Macedonia are released for service in Bosnia, which might have an impact on the number of American forces required.

Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the events of the past few days have shown that, no matter what weasel words are spoken by the political negotiators on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Serbs' armed forces are determined to achieve their own objectives, which makes it exceedingly difficult to forecast what will happen?
In those circumstances, is not every other Muslim enclave surrounded by Serbs now under threat throughout Bosnia? Without the United Nations taking another very long look at its policy, what guarantees can be given that people in those enclaves can be secure? Surely it would be tragic to suggest to them that they might be safe, when, as the people of Gorazde have found, even their hospital is being shelled.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Serbs have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy in terms of the assurances that they have given: that has been true not only in the past few days but for many months—many ceasefires have been negotiated which have not been honoured by the combatants.
My hon. Friend asked about the other enclaves. He will know that General Rose had been hoping to send a United Nations force into Gorazde to make it much more difficult for the Serbs to act aggressively towards that town. The Government had agreed to allow British troops to be redeployed there if that, in his operational judgment, was the right thing to do.
As for the other enclaves, there are already significant United Nations forces in those towns: in Srebrenica, there are about 500 Dutch United Nations forces; in Zepa, there are about 150 Ukrainians; in Bihaj, about 1,200 French; and in Tuzla, about 800 from the Nordic battalion. Clearly, that will be of considerable assistance to the United Nations in its objectives.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In painting a necessarily sombre picture of events in Gorazde, does the Secretary of State accept that there might be lessons to be learned from the rather different circumstances of Sarajevo, where the credible threat of military action, coupled with intensive diplomatic effort, has managed to restore that community to some semblance of normality? Will he confirm that the Government will not support any lifting of economic sanctions against Serbia as long as safe areas are at risk and there is no overall peace settlement in place?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course, the circumstances in Sarajevo were unique, in that artillery was attacking from the heights, which were themselves credible targets for the use of air power. In addition, there is every reason to believe that the combination of Russian diplomacy and the Serbs' own assessment of the importance to be attached to maintaining that artillery barrage both contributed to that operation having the result that it did.
As for the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, of course the imposition of economic sanctions is causing a great deal of economic hardship to the Belgrade Government, as well as to the Serbs in general; it is, therefore, an important weapon, which must be used to its maximum extent.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am sure that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend will, like the whole House, have as their first interest the security of British armed forces personnel on the ground and in the air over Bosnia. May I express my condolences to the family of Corporal Rennie of the Special Air Service Regiment and to that of Marine Commando Coates who so tragically died? What arrangements have been put in place to enable the commander of the United Nations Protection Force and his subordinate commanders in Bosnia to call on close air support more rapidly and more effectively when the lives of their own forces are at serious risk?

Mr. Rifkind: There is no difficulty about the use of close air support where it is required for the defence of UNPROFOR forces. As we saw in Gorazde itself, General Rose was able to call on air power, which was available within 45 minutes. Therefore, where it is required for the defence of United Nations forces, I believe that the present procedures are indeed appropriate.

Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Secretary of State agree that, unless more United Nations troops are sent to Bosnia, other safe havens will be in danger of being overrun?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that we must take very seriously the judgment of the United Nations commanders on the ground about the minimum manpower they require to carry out the policy that is expected of them. We cannot have expectations of the UN in Bosnia and then not provide it with the means of carrying out that policy. General Rose has emphasised that he does not wish to adopt a combat role in Bosnia, but that he needs a certain minimum number of personnel if he is properly to implement a peacekeeping role. We agree with him.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it not deeply disturbing that as we begin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the glorious victory which set Europe free, at the very heart of Europe, in a country where 200,000 people have been slaughtered in the past two years, the words "safety and protection" mean very little?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend not feel that the time has come for the leaders of Government of the four permanent members of the Security Council most concerned to meet together? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take the initiative in summoning a meeting of President Clinton, President Mitterrand and President Yeltsin, so that something can be done? It is in no one's interests that ethnic cleansing and the alteration of boundaries by force of an internationally recognised sovereign state should be successful.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend further, and finally, agree that if it were not for the fact that the bulk of the blame attaches to Serbia and the Serbs, we should not have sanctions against them? As we do, let us therefore make it abundantly clear to them that they will not get away with this.

Mr. Rifkind: Close contact between world leaders is, of course, important. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to the President of the United States yesterday. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the considerable need to ensure that Russia, who is a member of the Security Council, works in the closest harmony with the other permanent members. Over the past few days, Russia has tried hard to impress on the Serbs the need for considerable restraint. The House will have heard the remarks of Mr. Churkin, the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, who expressed his own frustration with Serbian mendacity over the past 48 hours.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the warnings given that the situation could lead NATO to stumble into a civil war in Bosnia are turning out to be frighteningly true? NATO is not the United Nations, although the humanitarian and peacekeeping roles may be successful. However, with the experience of 18,000 troops in Northern Ireland for 25 years, with 33,000 people killed or injured during that period, there must be some lessons to be learned.
Will the Secretary of State resist the siren voices from the White House and from this House encouraging further military action? Will he take the matter back to the United Nations Security Council, where all the permanent members can contribute their opinion, and restore it to a UN function, in which any military operations are under the command of the Military Staffs Committee and not under the command of NATO?

Mr. Rifkind: Although I agree that NATO should not become involved in a combat role in the Bosnian war, the right hon. Gentleman must also take account of the fact that NATO has been successful in assisting the United Nations to prevent the Serbs from using air power against their foes within Bosnia and in enforcing the naval embargo, which is crucial to the effectiveness of the sanctions policy.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that probably for the first time ever, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? I strongly suspect that many people outside the House who are keen to support our forces in anything they do are deeply concerned at what they perceive to be a change in the main policy that the forces are directed to carry out. If the shooting up of tanks by British aircraft is not combat, please may I know what it might be?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course it is combat, but if it is required for purposes of self-defence, my hon. Friend, I am sure, would be the first to justify it. We have made it clear from the very moment that British and other UN forces arrived in Bosnia that, if their lives were under threat, it was entirely appropriate that we should use all the military means at our disposal to protect them. I know that my hon. Friend would have been the first to criticise us if we had so altered the rules of engagement that we exposed our troops


to attack by Serbian or other forces and could not use the means, including air power, to defend them wherever necessary.

Mr. William Ross: Given the actions of the Serbs over the past two years, is it not self-evident that they have very clear objectives? Have the Government or anyone else yet determined exactly what are those objectives? When do the Government expect them to be achieved?

Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that the Serbs—and, indeed, the other combatants in this war—have very clear objectives. The United Nations must seek, in a slow, painful, but determined way, to find a way in which each of the factions will realise that military means alone will not produce a lasting peace in Bosnia. Much has been achieved in most of Bosnia with regard to those objectives. However, as recent events have shown, there is still an awful lot to be done.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I add my sympathy to that expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on the death of the soldiers in Bosnia, and especially express sympathy to my constituents, the parents of Marine Coates? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that he will bear in mind at all times the danger of dragging the United Kingdom into another war in a region of historically unresolved conflict, and that he and his colleagues will ensure that we do not slip and slide into a European Vietnam, killing young men and women for no discernible gain?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to emphasise those points. One of our main objectives over the past two years has been to seek to ensure that the war in Bosnia has not spread to other countries in that region. So far, that objective has been successful.

Mr. Derek Enright: In view of the lack of practical purpose shown by the United States of America in recent months, would not the Secretary of State consider looking closely with his European colleagues at what is happening in the context of the European Union? Will he also ensure that those deliberations are made public as far as possible, to take along with them the majority of the peoples of Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: There are quite significant limits to what can be expected from the European Union with regard to military personnel able to assist in Bosnia. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, for its own reasons, Germany is unable to be involved in the process—nor has Italy been able to, until recently. There are severe constraints. If there were an overall peace settlement in Bosnia that required an enhanced UN presence, it would be quite unrealistic to believe that that could be achieved without the active involvement of the United States.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it was absolutely right to support the peace initiative in the past two months, but that our role in Bosnia remains twofold? One role is to support the distribution of humanitarian aid and the other is in monitoring the peace. If there is no peace, there is no

mandate. Will he therefore discuss in all the decision-making centres what our role can be in future, but, in doing so, will he bear in mind the fact that there would not be support in this country, in my view, for sending further troops to Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the mandate is to try to help to achieve a peace. Much has been achieved, not only in the Sarajevo area, but elsewhere in central Bosnia, where there has been no fighting between Croat and Muslim forces for some considerable period. All the efforts must concentrate on seeking to ensure that the progress that has been made in central Bosnia should also be available in those areas where Serb forces are involved, as that would be the best way in which to ensure that peace was eventually brought to that weary land.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not the most immediate and pressing matter concern for the security and safety of a town under siege, because of the known activities of the Serbian warlords, such as ethic cleansing and mass murder? Do the Secretary of State and the Government generally accept that what is now at stake is the credibility of the international community? The Serbs have exploited to the utmost the indecision—the manner in which the west generally has been so reluctant to act. Have not we learnt the basic lesson that one cannot appease fascist oppression? One either faces up to it or the fascists will win, as, so far, they have in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has been careful to avoid saying what his especial remedy would be for resolving that predicament. Unless he is calling for many thousands of British and other soldiers to be sent in a combat role to Bosnia, frankly, his words are no more than the words of a windbag.

Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not the case that there has been virtually no response to the call for international support from other countries, and notably not from the United States, in its failure to provide ground support? That being so, and as my right hon. and learned Friend has clearly said that the United Nations will not be involved in a combat role, is it not doubly important that the role of our British forces should be carefully defined, and that clear limits should be set for their involvement?

Mr. Rifkind: I could not agree more with what my right hon. Friend has said. It is extremely important when lives are at stake that functions should be clearly spelled out. We should not have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved at the military level. It is precisely because rhetoric has so outstripped reality over so many months that people are now able to claim that the United Nations has failed in its task. I believe that those on the ground in Bosnia serving the United Nations have achieved all that could reasonably be expected of them. That needs to be acknowledged.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is the Secretary of State for Defence saying that resolution 836, which authorises the use of force to defend safe areas as defined by the United Nation, is a piece of rhetoric and a resolution that cannot be enforced? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument seems to rest on the proposition that it is not practical or feasible to impose a peace over the whole of Bosnia. But that was not the proposition that was tested at the weekend, which was


much more limited—whether the UN and the international community had the will to defend a small enclave of a few square miles and fewer than 100,000 people.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that even the very wording of resolution 836 is ambiguous. It refers to "any measures" and uses the phrase "acting in self-defence". That implies the ambiguity that is at the root of the problem. We have seen the limitations that air power alone has in resolving a problem of this sort.
I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this subject and I respect his sincerity. Unless, however, one believes that air power by itself could relieve Gorazde, one has either to consider the use of ground forces in a combat role or to recognise the limitations in implementing resolution 836 in the way that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is it not time to abandon the fiction that peace can be imposed from outside if the combatants do not want it? What knowledge does Her Majesty's Government have of the real aims of the Serbian Administration? They have 70 per cent. of Bosnia already; how much do they want?

Mr. Rifkind: We can only speculate on the objectives of each of the factions. It is clear, however, that it is a war about territory and that each of the factions is seeking to grab as much territory as possible to strengthen its negotiating position for the final political settlement. That clearly is part of their thinking. It is also evident that no political settlement that is not rooted in the consent of all the three communities can have any chance of bringing lasting peace to Bosnia.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I say to the Secretary of State what I really do believe? If Margaret Thatcher had been Prime Minister today, she would have sorted out this bloody—I use the word advisedly—nonsense one and a half years ago. At least she demanded that fascism should be stopped in its tracks in the heart of Europe, whereas this Conservative Government have ducked the issue.

Mr. Rifkind: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I would remind him that even my noble Friend Lady Thatcher made it clear that she did not support the use of British or other UN troops in a combat role on the ground in Bosnia. If an individual is not prepared to support that policy, and unless one is arguing that the use of air power alone can somehow impose peace on Bosnia, the hon. Gentleman is putting forward a proposition that is not sustained by reality.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the fact that there was not a large enough force forthcoming to be sure of the UN imposing its will in Bosnia. Does he accept that no force, however large, could impose the UN's will on Bosnia? Surely we should learn the lessons of the Americans in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan.
There is no military solution to the problems of Bosnia. There is a civil war into which it appears we are being inexorably drawn. I hope that there is no question of changing the UN's mandate there beyond humanitarian aid. I hope that we will consider withdrawal seriously, before we suffer some ghastly disaster, as the Americans did in the Lebanon.

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is correct to point out that even a large combat army could, at best, hope to achieve only short-term objectives in Bosnia, because it would very quickly become an occupying army and, without a political settlement, would experience the same difficulties as those experienced by other such armies in other parts of the world. Therefore, I agree with my right hon. Friend's analysis.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the look on the Prime Minister's face tells everyone everything today? This is another Government failure—and they were warned—and it is a Common Market failure into the bargain. Does the Secretary of State have any contingency plans to withdraw the troops before the television crews withdraw first? For God's sake be careful before the Government follow them into the next cockpit.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes his usual constructive contribution on these occasions. With regard to the latter part of his remarks, of course we have quite properly considered the safety requirements of the British forces. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that whatever would be required to ensure their safety—whatever the eventualities might be—has been taken into account.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the risks that our troops are taking? Their professionalism and courage have never been in doubt. However, attempts to pretend that surgical air strikes could somehow take place were wishful thinking, given the terrain and weather conditions in Bosnia. Anyone who has flown over the area is aware of that.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also realise that the absence of the Germans' and Americans' presence on the ground means that the prospects of obtaining realistic measures in terms of negotiations have been substantially weakened—if they were ever viable? The absence of those two great powers on the ground is causing problems in the negotiations.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend referred correctly to a number of considerations. He is correct to emphasise the limitations on the use of air power. Air power can assist in defending our forces and it can be of assistance in certain very specific circumstances. However, it is quite unrealistic to believe that it can somehow deliver a peace to Bosnia in the absence of other factors pointing in the direction.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the international community is going to allow the Bosnian Serbs to put two fingers up to the United Nations, could we at least lift the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Government can defend themselves adequately?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the arms embargo. He will appreciate that if the arms embargo were lifted, two factors would flow: first, there could be no continuing United Nations presence in Bosnia, with all the humanitarian consequences that would flow from that; secondly, there could be no possibility of continuing Russian co-operation with the rest of the United Nations. As I understand it, it would require a resolution of


the Security Council to lift the arms embargo. I find it difficult to believe that the Russians would agree to that. It would therefore have quite serious consequences.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider withdrawing completely? Some of us said at the beginning that it was a mistake for British forces to be in Bosnia under any circumstances. We have now lost four British lives. What are the circumstances that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider when he thinks about withdrawing? People are sick and tired of having British forces at risk when there is no British interest there at all.

Mr. Rifkind: British and other UN forces have been responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives over the past two years. We must therefore think hard and long before considering that that role has come to an end. We have always argued that the presence of British forces should be continued so long as two criteria are met: first, that they can carry out their mandate and, secondly, that they can do so without unacceptable risk to themselves. We must constantly monitor the situation to see whether both the criteria continue to be met.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the credibility of the United Nations and the stopping of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia are in Britain's interests? Has it not been obvious from the outset that the only thing that would stop Serbian aggression is overwhelming superior force, and from the outset some of us have argued that that is what should have been employed, including—in case the Secretary of State accuses me of mincing words—the use of ground troops? Is not the reason why we are in this mess the fact that we failed to exercise leadership from the outset?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been one of the few to carry through the logic of his position. I also acknowledge that if military force were to be part of international policy, that would require the massive deployment of ground forces. There are some 15,000 UN troops in Bosnia. There are about 200,000 heavily armed Serbs, Croats and Muslims who are fighting each other.
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman can work out for himself the likely size of a UN or NATO force that would be required not simply to make an impact but to take over the permanent military occupation of a country as large as Bosnia. He must also take into account how long that force would be likely to be required, and what would be the likely response of Serb, Croat and Muslim fighters over the many years that such a force would have to try to pacify Bosnia.

Sir Dudley Smith: As this is a European civil war, will my right hon. and learned Friend please make the strongest possible representations to his brother Ministers in the Western European Union and NATO that they must shoulder a greater part of the burden of the peacekeeping operation? At the same time, may I echo what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said earlier—that we must

keep sanctions in place and, if possible, intensify them? Sanctions work well, but there are some distressing seepages.

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that European countries must make the fullest possible contribution to helping in problems of this sort. I know that the Federal Republic of Germany is anxious to see an end to the constitutional constraints on its own contribution and we hope that that will be possible before long.

Mr. Max Madden: As the Bosnian tragedy unfolds, is it not clear that what is happening is the direct and terrible consequence of appeasement, which has continued since the start of the conflict? Does the Secretary of State agree that, as we are at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour, this is not the time for politicians, who are the guilty parties, to try to shift the blame on to the United Nations, the military or anyone else? Is it not now clear that the international community, through the United Nations, should either mobilise the means to stop aggression in Bosnia or give the people of Bosnia the means to defend themselves?

Mr. Rifkind: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is careful not to spell out exactly what he is recommending. If he did, people would be able to pass comment on the merits of his proposals.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is impossible to overstate the gravity of a situation in which the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has pledged to honour and maintain safe havens in Bosnia, when one of those safe havens is being overrun by hostile forces at present? Can he assure the House that at no time in recent days have requests by General Rose for air strikes been turned down, other than on weather grounds?
Finally, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Sea Harrier that was shot down over Gorazde at the weekend was equipped with a hands-off fully automated electronic counter-measures system? When will his Department give approval for the urgent operation requirement which it has already drafted for unmanned air vehicles, which could avoid the necessity to deploy the Special Air Service Regiment in such exposed areas?

Mr. Rifkind: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, clearly there are some operations for which ground-based forward air controllers will always be required. My hon. Friend knows that that must be true in many circumstances, but not in every circumstance.
On the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question, I am not privy to any internal conversations within the UN. However, I have no reason to believe that General Rose has made any requests in recent days in respect of Gorazde that have not been accepted.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Do negotiations ever take place with Serbia about economic sanctions? Economic sanctions are fast becoming one of the few cards we hold, yet they are a problematic card. It is likely that they assist Milosevic to retain power, while devastating the country economically. Sanctions also hit the Albanians in Kosovo, but do nothing to control the armed position with regard to the Serbs in Bosnia.

Mr. Rifkind: There are always different views on the efficacy of economic sanctions, but it is clear that


Milosevic and his colleagues would dearly like sanctions to be lifted because of the damage they are doing to the economy of his country. Therefore, in that respect they are clearly a useful part of the pressure which can be applied against him.

Mr. Jim Lester: Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the status of the safe havens policy, and say whether the UN has any means to maintain and achieve it other than persuasion?

Mr. Rifkind: It has been General Rose's view that, to make the safe havens policy effective, it is necessary to get significant garrisons of UN personnel into the safe havens. That is what he was trying to do in Gorazde, but he was unsuccessful. We have garrisons in the other safe havens, and that aspect of General Rose's policy is much more likely to succeed in respect of the other towns.

Mr. Harry Cohen: What are the Government doing to get the release of the UN hostages who were taken by the Bosnian Serbs? Is the Secretary of State still satisfied that the humanitarian aid policy is the one which results in the least loss of life in Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand that some 16 UN personnel have been released, and efforts are continuing to ensure the release of the others.
On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is at the heart of the dilemma we all face that there is no doubt that the humanitarian efforts lead to the saving of many thousands of lives, yet one is conscious that, by themselves, they do not contribute to ending the war. Therefore, it is constantly necessary to balance the factors and to come to an honest judgment on where the interests of the people of Bosnia most lie.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that military advice on the ground should not be ignored? If that military advice says that 8,000 more troops are required, but those troops are not forthcoming from the other member states, my right hon. and learned Friend may well have to decide, in the interests of British troops, between leaving those troops there and facing yet more casualties and withdrawing them and their armaments from the UNPROFOR.

Mr. Rifkind: Twelve hundred of the 8,000 have arrived and, as far as I am aware, the other countries that have promised troops have not said that they have changed their minds or that they are no longer proposing to send them. It is clearly important that they act as quickly as possible, so that the troops can arrive in Bosnia and be available to General Rose to help carry out the policy that he is seeking to implement.

Ms Kate Hoey: Does the Minister realise that many of us—on both sides of the House—have been saying for more than two years that the Serbs were not interested in diplomacy, discussions or talking, and that they were interested in a Greater Serbia? Does he now agree that, as the international community has failed so dismally, we cannot sit in the House of Commons and say that we will prevent the people of Bosnia, including the Government and the Muslims, from being armed and able to defend themselves if we are not prepared to do it?

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point of view, which is perfectly respectable, but she must accept

that it implies the ending of the humanitarian operation in Bosnia. She must also realise that there are practical difficulties in implementing such a policy, given that it would require the repeal of Security Council resolution. As Russia—a permanent member of the Security Council—has made it clear that it would not support such a resolution, any ending of the arms embargo would have to be in defiance of a UN resolution. I am afraid that that cannot be ignored.

Mr. Roger Gale: May I take this opportunity, which has been denied me by parliamentary convention for two years, to pay tribute to members of our armed forces who have fought the humanitarian war in Bosnia, sometimes at the ultimate cost? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he has given, and will give, General Rose the UK military support that he demands? Was not General Rose right to say that wars cannot be fought from white trucks?
Does it not behove those who appear to wish to fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood to say clearly how many troops they wish to send, how long they want them to stay there, and how many body bags they are prepared to see come home? If they are not prepared to do so, should they not recognise that there is a limit to what the United Nations can achieve?

Mr. Rifkind: May I use this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my colleague, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence? I agree with his assessment that it is important that we do not create false expectations. Nothing could be crueller to the people of Bosnia than to use rhetoric that creates an expectation which, in the event, cannot be fuilfilled.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: As the Government's current policy is based on the Serbians not turning their fire on United Nations personnel but confining their attack and slaughter to civilians and others in Bosnia, is there not a moral imperative to permit the Bosnians the right to defend themselves?

Mr. Rifkind: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey): this is a dilemma, and there is no simple answer to it. But the hon. Gentleman must also question the implications for the UN humanitarian operation, which, I notice, he carefully avoided referring to.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those hon. Members who subscribe to the "something must be done" school of thought and talk airily about committing more troops to Bosnia, should be pressed to say exactly what they mean, so that their constituents can weigh up the dangers to which those hon. Members are prepared to expose British troops?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend puts the case eloquently and reasonably. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will realise that if this House is to command respect, it must not call for policy through rhetorical flourishes unless it is prepared to live with the consequences of what it recommends.

Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly described to the House the vicious and nasty civil war in what was Yugoslavia. Bearing in mind the events of the past few days and the huge contribution


made by British troops towards reducing the slaughter in that country, does he feel that the UN mandate can continue to be applied without further resources from other countries, and the burden being shared by other nations? If that proves impossible, can British troops continue to carry out their present role without that further help?

Mr. Rifkind: I said in my statement that careful thought will have to be given to how the mandate is operating and whether anything is needed to increase its effectiveness. At present, we should attach importance to the successful achievements which General Rose and his colleagues have to their credit in Sarajevo and the Croat and Muslim areas of central Bosnia. Their achievements have brought a welcome peace to many hundreds of thousands of people. Were that to be put in jeopardy by a withdrawal of the UN, it would be a heavy responsibility, on which we would not wish to embark unless there was no credible alternative.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In rightly stressing the importance of having realistic objectives, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that that must extend also to existing UN stated objectives? Does he accept that there is no historical example of safe havens being maintained by air power alone, the first unsuccessful attempt at that being Dien Bien Phu?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that the use of air power alone will rarely have more than a limited military consequence, which must be borne in mind in any statements of policy by either the Security Council or others interested in these matters.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is it not remarkable that those who advocate more troops and a more aggressive military stance are at a loss to explain where they will get those extra troops? Is it not now clear that, unless we can sustain our peacekeeping role and allow our troops to protect themselves effectively—that requires United States involvement to have any credibility—we shall have to look seriously at withdrawal? I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that it was Lord Owen who drew our attention to the fact that we might have to withdraw.

Mr. Rifkind: Certainly the United Kingdom makes the second largest contribution of forces to the United Nations in Bosnia. I do not believe that anyone would want to suggest that we are not carrying our full share of responsibilities. If there were a need for a significant number of additional UN forces, that burden would have to be shared more widely.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be more forthcoming about nations that have promised troops and not delivered them, and about those that have not promised any at all? Surely that is the point that gung-ho types opposite should take into account before running the risk of shedding the blood of our own forces.

Mr. Rifkind: The immediate objective is to meet the need for the 8,000 personnel whom General Rose has said he requires to carry out his current policy. If the countries that have pledged troops are able to ensure their arrival, that requirement will have been achieved.

Lady Olga Maitland: What discussions has my right hon. and learned Friend had with the Russians in the past 24 hours, and what discussions does he plan with them? Does he agree that Mr. Churkin has been disappointed by the response from Belgrade, but that any hopes that we may have must rest with the Russians exerting due influence on Belgrade? After all, that is where the sheer energy for this brutal war has been coming from.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the Russians have been constructive over the past few days. The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, has been in Belgrade; Mr. Churkin has been negotiating in Bosnia. It is therefore important that all the permanent members of the Security Council speak with a single voice on this matter, as far as possible.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State for Defence has continuously referred to the "warring factions" of the Croats, Bosnians and Serbs, ignoring the American-brokered agreement between the Croats and the Muslims. That agreement makes it clear that the only aggressors in the current circumstances are the Serbs. The Muslims are not trying to break out of Gorazde to gain territory, certainly. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman essentially telling us that the west, the international community, is incapable of dealing with Serbian aggression?

Mr. Rifkind: The events in Gorazde of the past few days have undoubtedly been the consequence of Serb aggression, but there still are a number of warring factions in Bosnia. One of the British soldiers who lost their lives in the past week was killed by Serbian action; a Bosnian Government soldier shot the other one dead. The hon. Gentleman must therefore appreciate that the war continues, although I welcome the progress made in respect of the Croat-Muslim relationship.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This statement has run for nearly an hour, showing that there is widespread interest in and concern about the terrible events in Bosnia. You well know that you have said in the past that, when applications are made for an emergency debate, you are highly unlikely to consider them unless there has been a specific change of Government policy.
The horrors of Bosnia continue day by day, and the Government are clearly unwilling to provide a debate in their time which would give critics of Government policy time to expand on our arguments and a chance to answer the challenges that have been made to us during questions on this statement.
If the Government on Thursday do not announce a debate on Bosnia next week, would you be prepared to accept an application under Standing Orders for an emergency debate, to allow the Government to explain their policies on Bosnia, and to give critics of Government policy time to advance our arguments?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the hon. Member for Bradford, West has made an important point. People outside do not understand why this grave international crisis is not properly debated in this House. In the whole of the two and a half years or more since the Serbian aggression began in Croatia, we have had a handful of debates, and most of those were not exclusively on the Yugoslav situation.
Therefore, may I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider most sympathetically the point of order by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden): that, if a debate is not announced on Thursday, you might be minded to consider its importance next week?

Madam Speaker: I never divulge my thinking in advance. The matter is rather hypothetical, and the House will have to leave it to me. I have clearly heard what hon. Members on both sides have had to say about the matter.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) AMENDMENT (No. 2)

Mr. Michael Clapham, supported by Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. Tony Patchett, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, presented a Bill to amend the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations to reduce to 10 years the aggregate period of underground work required to qualify for benefits in cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; to amend the regulations relating to medical examinations for these diseases; to amend provisions relating to the percentage levels of disablement required to qualify for benefits in respect of these diseases; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 April, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Marks Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill represents an important measure for industry and commerce in the United Kingdom. Though long and, in many areas, complex, the Bill will make it easier for industry and commerce to register their trade marks and will provide owners of registered trade marks with wider infringement rights.
The Bill will harmonise our law with the laws of other members of the European Union. That is important, because business wants to have the same registration criteria and protection for its trade marks as are offered in other member states. It also implements our obligations in respect of trade marks arising from the final act of the GATT Uruguay round which was signed last week.
The Bill is also deregulatory, because it sweeps away the need for businesses to present the Patent Office with legal documentation for relatively straightforward changes to trade marks registration.
The importance of trade marks in day-to-day commercial activity is easily recognised. I doubt whether any of us could go through the day without using someone's trade mark, but trade marks are seldom recognised by most people as valuable assets. That is, of course, exactly what they are. Some have been valued in company balance sheets at several hundred millions of pounds, and the transfer of ownership of registered trade marks internationally each year is valued at billions of pounds.
There are some 350,000 trade marks on the UK register. Each year, there are approximately 35,000 new applications for registration. Therefore, it is important that the statutory framework that surrounds this important area of commercial activity should reflect the needs of businesses. The Government believe that the Bill does that.
The Bill completely replaces the current Trade Marks Act 1938. At present, the law does nothing to support the international marketing strategies of our large exporting companies; nor does it reflect the needs of small and medium-sized companies for an easy registration system.
When we started to discuss the draft European directive on trade marks with representatives of industry and commerce, it became obvious that there was a need to reform the whole of our law on trade marks. Therefore, the Government set out in the White Paper "Reform of Trade Mark Law" proposals for legislation. The White Paper was published over three years ago and received a very favourable response from business.
Since that time, extensive consultation has continued with organisations representing industry, commerce, the legal and trade mark professions and consumers, usually through the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property. Of course, that does not mean that the particular wishes of every sector have been met, but the result is a Bill which commands the full support of industry and companies large and small. The Government believe that it


reflects industry's needs for a law that maximises the protection given to owners of registered trade marks, yet reduces to a minimum the amount of regulation. It means that the direct costs to industry and commerce will be reduced and, therefore, their ability to increase investment in product development and marketing will be enhanced.
Part I of the Bill implements the directive and, in doing so, establishes a new code for the registration of trade marks. Clauses 1 and 3, in essence, provide for a mark to qualify for registration if it is capable of distinguishing one trader's goods or services from those of another. This means that it should be possible to register as a trade mark, for example, a container or a geographic name, where those have proved to be distinctive in the marketplace. Those are unregistrable under the current law, which defines a trade mark in a narrow and restrictive way.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend will have read in the press that some manufacturers seek to use the Bill as a means of restricting or phasing out own-label products. Does he agree that own-label products in the grocery trade—about which the Minister for Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is also present on the Front Bench, will be happy to inform my hon. Friend—offer the consumer greater choice and more competitive prices, and that it would be wrong to use the Bill to phase them out?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend anticipates a matter that I may mention later.
Clauses 9 to 13 specify the rights given under registration. The infringement rights are widened. Under the 1938 Act, the owner of a registered mark can sue someone for infringement only if that person uses the same mark on the same goods or services as those for which the mark is registered. The Bill extends infringement rights to cover similar goods or services. That means that if the owner of a registered mark observes that his mark is being used by someone else on goods or services that are the same as, or similar to, those covered by the registration, he will be able to sue that other person for infringement and seek damages.
The directive is the result of negotiations in which the UK participated fully. United Kingdom industry and commerce were, through interest groups, fully consulted. Harmonisation occurs only in those areas where differences in the substantive law of member states could distort competition. The directive does not affect procedures connected with the registration of a trade mark. For example, it requires member states to protect the rights of earlier registered marks, but does not tell them how that should be done.
We decided, after consulting users of the trade mark system, that in the United Kingdom the registrar of trade marks will continue to carry out a search of marks already registered and to refuse an application for registration where that conflicts with an earlier registered trade mark. Clause 5 reflects that. Small companies, in particular, will benefit.
As I said, the Bill deregulates in a number of ways. In particular, the procedures for the registration of assignments and licences of trade marks, which are also dealt with in part I, will be much simplified. The current law requires the registrar to fulfil a kind of consumer

protection role. That is an old-fashioned notion. Other bodies and modern legislation can do that job far more effectively. Customers are far more sophisticated than they were in 1938, when the current trade mark law was enacted. More important, it is not in the interests of the trade mark owner to do anything that would cause confusion in the market—and registration could be revoked if, through the actions of the proprietor, the trade mark becomes misleading.
It will not be the registrar's job to police the assignment or licensing of trade marks. The present requirement for the registrar to examine in detail the deeds of assignment and the licence agreements will be discontinued. That will reduce the burden on owners of marks as well as the running costs of the trade mark registry.
Industry tells us that will save it more than £30 million a year. In addition, the resources saved in the Patent Office will be applied to the more positive objective of meeting customer service targets.
Current trade mark law does nothing to support the international marketing strategies of companies in the United Kingdom. Part II remedies that. It makes provisions for the United Kingdom to ratify the Madrid protocol concerning the international registration of trade marks. That will make it much easier for UK industry to protect its marks overseas.
An international trade mark registration system known as the Madrid agreement has been in operation for more than 100 years and has a membership of more than 30 countries. That membership has, however, been fairly static. It has not appealed to countries that, like the UK, examine trade marks before registering them. They include the United States of America, Canada, Japan and the Scandinavian countries.
For that reason, a protocol to the Madrid agreement was agreed in 1989, which overcomes all the disadvantages of the old agreement. The UK took a leading role in the negotiations on the protocol and we signed it. Ratification, however, needs the Bill, which provides for the making of regulations to bring the protocol into force here.
Once the protocol comes into force, a simple arrangement will enable UK companies to obtain an international registration, covering any or all of the countries party to the protocol. The registration will have the same rights and legal effect in those countries as a national application.
That will be of considerable financial benefit to UK trade mark owners. At present, a UK trade mark owner who wants to protect his mark overseas must apply separately for registration in each of the countries concerned. That involves observing whatever procedures each country requires and paying fees in local currency. Some countries insist on the use of a lawyer. All that, as can be imagined, involves a great deal of trouble and expense. Industry told us that the new international registration arrangement should save it up to a further £30 million per year—a considerable benefit.
A further option for companies wishing to protect their trade marks overseas will be the Community trade mark, which will come into being as a result of an EC Council regulation that was adopted last year. The Community trade mark office will open for business in about 1996, in Alicante. The test for obtaining a Community trade mark will, of course, be the same as that applying in all member states. But, through a single application, a proprietor will be able to secure a unitary right that is effective in all


member states. Therefore, in the European Union, industry has a further choice when managing its international trade mark portfolios.
Parts III and IV of the Bill deal with administration and general provisions. I should like to single out the provision dealing with trade marks counterfeiting. That is a growing problem throughout the world and the United Kingdom is not immune to it. The offence trades on the reputation of famous and established trade marks. Unscrupulous traders copy goods sold under well-known trade marks. That devalues the reputation of the trade mark, because the counterfeit goods are frequently of inferior quality and might even be dangerous. Moreover, it also harms traders in the genuine goods, who, consequently, lose business. The Bill, therefore, will strengthen the protection against trade mark counterfeiting.
It is an essential ingredient of the offence under the current trade mark law that a trader intends that a consumer should believe that the goods were genuine. There has, however, been a dramatic growth in the practice of selling counterfeit goods clearly advertised as "brand copies".
Until recently, it was believed that that was, none the less, an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. However, the divisional court held in a recent case—Kent county council v. Price—that this was not so, observing that the Trade Descriptions Act existed to protect consumers and, as the defendant was advertising the goods as fake, they were not deceived. There was, therefore, no offence.
However, as the Bill is concerned with the protection of trade marks, clause 87 defines the offence in terms of unauthorised use of the mark. That protects the legitimate rights of trade mark owners. Even if an unscrupulous trader sells the goods as "genuine fakes", it will still be an offence, because he will be deliberately exploiting someone's mark without their permission.
Some concerns were expressed, both in another place and elsewhere, that the anti-counterfeiting provisions in the Bill went too far and could have made the person who inadvertently infringes someone else's trade mark liable to criminal charges. They felt that such infringements should be left to the civil courts. The Government believe that the changes that have been made in another place remove that danger and better focus the criminal sanctions on deliberate counterfeiting.
It will not have escaped notice of hon. Members that one of the issues surrounding the Bill has been given wide coverage in the press and on television—the issued termed "lookalikes", which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) raised earlier. The issue, however, is a new one. It was not raised until the end of last year, despite the fact that the Government consulted exhaustively on the White Paper and the Bill for some five years.
Last December, a number of large firms banded together to form the British Brand Owners and Producers Group, with the aim of pressing for the inclusion of a clause in the Bill to curb what have become known as "lookalike products". These are own-branded products allegedly designed to look like the brand leader's goods. It is claimed, for example, that supermarkets sell their instant coffee in jars with labels designed to look like other, well-known brands. Industry is divided and although the brand owners are pressing their case vigorously, many others feel that existing remedies, such as passing-off, are

adequate, or that it is not a matter for the Bill. Furthermore, many organisations have emphasised that distinctive shapes and packaging will be registrable under the Bill.
During consideration in another place, an amendment was tabled that would have made it an infringement of a trade mark to market goods designed to look like those of the trade mark owner, even though the actual trade mark was not used. The Government resisted that; it was, in any case, incompatible with the EC trade marks directive.
Those advocating action then changed the amendment to introduce a new cause of action for unfair competition. The Government, therefore, decided to consult via the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property. The committee was a channel through which the discussions on the White Paper and the Bill were carried out, and it is appropriate that it should be involved here.
The advisory committee met on 30 March and discussed the issue. Many other organisations with an interest in the "lookalikes" issue, including the British Brand Owners and Producers Group, were present. Each organisation put its case, and made written submissions. The Government have not yet taken a view. We are continuing with the consultation process, but at this stage we do not believe that it is an issue that can be addressed under trade marks legislation.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. McLoughlin: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Medway.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I must tell my hon. Friend that there will be considerable relief that he does not believe that the action of the British Brand Owners and Producers Group in its amendment in the other place forms a proper part of the Bill. He will know, no doubt, that National Opinion Polls carried out a survey on whether people can be confused by so-called "lookalikes", and found that 78 per cent. of consumers, who, as my hon. Friend said, are very sophisticated, are never confused. MORI carried out an even more recent survey and came to exactly the same figure. I hope that he will regard this as a competition matter and not at all a matter for the Bill.

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has adequately voiced the concerns of other people as well as the Brand Owners and Producers Group, which has voiced other concerns. This is something that, obviously, will be addressed throughout our consultation process. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her view.

Sir Dudley Smith: I am tempted to say that any politician will tell my hon. Friend that opinion polls are invariably wrong, but I will not go down that line.
My hon. Friend said that this was a relatively new subject in that the representations had come fairly late. I stress that they did so because the problem is growing, and growing daily. As I heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) say, one has only to look at the Coca-Cola issue in Sainsbury today.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his cautionary word about opinion polls. I wholly agree with him. I never agree with them unless they say what I want them to say. That is possibly the line that we


politicians always take. I am, therefore, very cautious about opinion polls. But he rightly points out the way in which this issue has, perhaps, come more to the fore. It did so rather late. The Bill had been widely debated for a long time. That was the point that I was stressing. We must address ourselves very carefully to whether this would be a right issue for the Bill. That was the point and concern that I was reflecting to the House a while ago.
The Bill, though long and complex, meets the Government's objectives in relation to UK industry. It simplifies and deregulates the national trade mark registration system and, therefore, saves time and money. Reduced costs will assist UK industry to compete in international markets. The provisions in the Bill for the Community trade mark and the Madrid protocol will help also. But, perhaps more important, the Bill represents what users of the trade mark system want. I hope that the Bill will command the support of both sides of the House and that we will give it a fair wind. The sooner that it is on the statute book, the sooner will the benefits start to accrue. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill: we understand the importance of trade marks to both British business and national and international trade. Unlike the Bill, however, the debate is concerned with the Government's delays and dithering over the presentation of legislation.
As we all know, trade marks are among a company's most valuable assets. Household names such as Persil and Pedigree Chum are all protected by trade mark legislation. Trade marks are a token of the esteem in which the public hold consumer products, and of a company's investment in achieving quality in a product.
The problem is the time that it has taken for the Bill to be presented. On the Government's own admission—the Minister has just said as much—the measure is likely to save British business £30 million. Why have the Government dithered for four years, while a White Paper published in 1990 has gathered dust on the Minister's shelf? He has had to blow the cobwebs off it.
The Minister must also explain why, during those years of dithering, businesses spent an unnecessary £90 million that would have been better spent on jobs in the businesses concerned and on taking up opportunities that they lost because of the delay. Those costs—and £90 million is the Government's figure, not mine—have all been passed on to the consumer. Businesses have begged the Government for action, but little has been done.
In October 1991, a letter to The Times stated:
Industry will continue to be deprived for at least two years and probably more of the proper means for the protection of its trade marks.
The delay has cost business dear. Despite that plea, however, nothing was done.
In June 1992, even Conservative Members were concerned about the Government's dithering. In reply to a parliamentary question, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) reminded the House that there had been many representations on the matter from business—from the

Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, Sir John Banham, to the president of the Institute of Trade Mark Agents, Richard Abnett.
The Minister said that there was no time: that the Government's priorities did not allow them to legislate, although business was losing £30 million a year because of the delay. Yet in that very year, although they could spare no time for an important Bill for businesses, the Government found time for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and 51 other measures that were deemed to have a higher priority than the reform of trade mark law. There was no movement for yet another full year—until the end of 1993, when a Bill was at last produced and debated in the House of Lords.
That, however, was only part of the culmination of a number of lengthy delays. More than 20 years ago, Sir Reginald Mathys reported on British trade mark law and practice, and made a number of recommendations to amend the law. None of those recommendations have been implemented in the intervening 20 years, save one—the requirement to register trade marks.
The White Paper published in 1990 followed extensive consultation on the Mathys plan. During the White Paper's consultation period, businesses were asked to make representations by the end of 1990; no action was taken for three years, however. Apparently, the Government had other priorities. Certainly, the President of the Board of Trade has had other priorities recently—for instance, ceasing to be President of the Board of Trade as quickly as possible.
We have four key concerns: the issue of "lookalike" products, the problem of brand copies and disclaimers, the return of seized copied goods to the copier and the future and role of the Patent Office. Recently, there has been much belated lobbying on the issue of lookalike products. On one side, some manufacturers and copyright holders fear that the public might make a mistake in their local grocer's shop or supermarket—that, for instance, they might mistake Coca-Cola for Sainsbury's cola. On the other side, are the British Retail Consortium, the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council, all of which believe that public choice would be restricted if—in the Bill or in future—the Government introduced provisions to protect packaging in itself, as a concept, and to prevent non-branded goods from being marketed in packaging that might resemble that of branded copies.
In fact, non-branded goods are often merely using packaging that the public have come to accept as symbolising a certain type of product, rather than the particular product being offered by the branded producer. We all find it useful, for instance, to see yellow bottles of washing-up liquid when we are shopping: the colour tells us that the fragrance is lemon. Similarly, the red tops of some coffee jars tell us that the coffee is decaffeinated. Those who lobby for the banning of non-branded similarities would condemn consumers to a lack of choice and much higher prices. The Consumers Association estimates that non-branded goods are between 20 and 25 per cent. cheaper than branded goods.
If the House accepts the arguments for an amendment now or later, it will pander to some of the companies with near-monopolistic market shares. Procter and Gamble and Unilever have 87 per cent. of the market share in detergents; Kelloggs has 57 per cent. of the share in cornflakes. Last year, Kelloggs was involved in a


disgraceful attempt to stop its cornflakes being sold at a discount by Shoprite and the Great Northern Co-op chains because it wanted to set the price; no doubt it colluded with other outlets that were not prepared to cut the price of Kelloggs cornflakes. Nestle has more than half the market share in instant coffee, and Pedigree—which I praised earlier—has built up nearly 60 per cent. of a sector of the dog food market.

Mr. Douglas French: Would it make any difference to the hon. Gentleman's views if the branded product and the alleged lookalike were manufactured by the same source?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think so. The packaging of some products that I buy looks remarkably like some branded packaging, and the contents also look very similar. I was taking it for granted that I could buy the original product at a discount. Let us say, however, that I was wrong, and that I was buying an inferior product. In this sector of the market, where products often cost pennies rather than pounds, the scope for a consumer to make an irretrievable mistake or to be deceived is much more limited, and the scope for damage to the consumer is narrower as well. Provided the consumer is not being deliberately deceived into thinking that he is buying branded goods and the manufacturer is not being cheated out of moneys, I can see no harm in it.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman gave figures showing that Kelloggs remains the brand leader. It remains so not because of the protection of the Bill but because it has marketed a product that people want to buy. Is not that far and away the best practice, because people are capable of making a rational choice? The hon. Gentleman is right in his line of argument: the suggestion that branding requires the additional protection of law is contrary to the consumer's interest.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member makes a forceful point.
The second matter that I wish to deal with is disclaimers, which were mentioned by the Minister. I am sorry to say that his interpretation seems to differ from that of the industry or of trading standards officers and otherenforcement officers. I hope to have a chance to question him further on that in Committee.
One of the problems is that people running car boot sales at the disreputable end of the market, as against the majority of highly reputable market stalls, are getting away with selling illegal fakes and copies by putting up a sign declaring that goods are copies. It is no comfort for businesses that have invested in the development of a product and have tried to ensure its quality to find that it is a defence in law for someone who has illegally manufactured similar goods at far lower cost and of a far lower quality to say that they are copies.
Kent county council trading standards officers have drawn my attention to problems that have arisen 'when counterfeit items have been seized. I received a letter dated 2 September 1993 from the British Phonographic Institute on the problems of securing convictions. It believes that
the stance adopted by the CPS will enable criminals to trade in illegal goods with impunity especially in the wake of a recent decision of the Divisional Court",
which the Minister cited,
in 'Kent County Council' v. Price which has permitted the use of disclaimers on counterfeit goods as a defence to charges under

Section 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
That Act is the key measure that trading standards officers use to combat counterfeiters. The BPI continues:
As a result of the Court's decision, Kent Trading Standards Officers are no longer taking action if disclaimers are used in conjunction with the sale of counterfeit goods.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am aware of the BPI's point, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill deals not with counterfeiting but only with trade marks. In opening, I specifically referred to counterfeiting of trade marks.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister has now made it clear what he is saying, but that reinforces my fear that laws on other areas of counterfeiting do not have the support of enforcement officers. The Crown Prosecution Service has been singled out for criticism for not taking a sufficiently vigorous approach to the prosecution of criminals who trade in illegal goods.
The Minister mentioned the importance of the clauses that address the problem, but potential loopholes have been drawn to our attention. Clause 87 proposes the insertion of the words
with a view to gain",
which may cause problems because they imply an element of guilty knowledge. Trading standards officers, who are in the front line of enforcement, tell me that they can foresee an offender evading liability by claiming that he or she was not selling for profit. Clause 87 (3) contains the phrase,
knowing or having reason to believe".
Again, difficulties may arise in proving guilty intention.
Trading standards officers show a distinct lack of confidence when they ask why the word "infringement" is used in the defence subsection—subsection (5)—and not in the offence subsection. They ask whether a defendant will be able to claim that he was not aware that the use of a sign infringed a trade mark. They point out that prosecuting counsel may have problems securing convictions.
Like trading standards officers, we believe that the Bill is a clear improvement, but it should contain a strict liability element. Our fears are echoed by market traders closer to home. Jubilee Market Hall in Covent Garden is concerned about the Crown Prosecution Service's failure to act in several cases where illegal traders are offering counterfeit goods and have been arrested for doing so.
We seek a guarantee that, under the Bill, at least at
some, if not all, of those practices will be eliminated so that a prosecution can be brought without any difficulty and, if proven, a conviction secured.
Concern has been expressed about the inadequacy of provisions for returning goods that have been seized where, for some reason, a conviction has not been secured. Kent county council drew our attention to a recent case in which a consignment of counterfeit clothing and Reebok and Adidas sportswear was imported into the United Kingdom. The consignment was seized and detained by Customs, but, because there were no apparent perpetrators in the United Kingdom, it was difficult to institute proceedings. Customs rightly ask what it is supposed to do with 5.5 tonnes of counterfeit clothing. There is no quick way of ensuring that it can be disposed of legally or that it does not go back on the market.
There are, of course, more serious cases in which the people responsible for the illegal manufacturing plants in this country that make fake goods are detained and charged, but, for technical reasons, are not convicted. In such cases, there is no way in which the legitimate


manufacturer who holds the trade mark can have the counterfeit goods properly impounded and destroyed instead of being returned to the person responsible for manufacturing but against whom no prosecution is likely or whose conviction has not been secured. British business has pleaded for the trade mark provisions to be put on a par with those in section 100 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
My fourth concern relates to the role and future of the Patent Office. For 119 years, we have been fortunate in having a public body, paid for by business and the taxpayer, to monitor the registration of patents. It is probably one of the reasons why British manufacturers secured a world lead in protecting their investments. The sad fact is that, had the Government acted quickly to implement the White Paper published in 1990, we should have been in pole position to have the European service based here. Due to their dithering and failure, the new trade mark is to be administered by a Community trade mark office located in Alicante, Spain, instead of in its rightful place. Because of the length of time that we have had a Patent Office and patent protection, that rightful place was in this country, in south Wales or elsewhere.
As we have lost the opportunity to have the European trade mark organisation and office in this country, just as we have lost so many other opportunities in Europe because of our dithering stance, we want an undertaking from the Minister that he will not weaken the service provided by the Patent Office either by embarking on an unwanted and costly privatisation exercise, in which neither the consumer nor business would have much faith, or by hiving it off in any other way. It is important that an office with such a responsible function, and which deals with thousands of millions of pounds' worth of business covered by patents, remains firmly in the public sector and remains open in Britain and does not move to Alicante or anywhere else.
As I said, my main regret about the Bill is that there has been so much delay and dithering. The opportunities and the £90 million which the Minister said that business had lost because of the delay in implementing the Bill are history. The Bill's best provisions should be introduced as quickly as possible so that businesses and their employees and consumers can benefit without further unnecessary delay.

Sir Dudley Smith: I broadly support the Bill and its objectives, which have been admirably outlined by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology. The Bill will achieve the necessary updating, which is overdue. I do not agree with the criticisms expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), but I do agree that there has been a delay, although it is sometimes wise to proceed carefully to get things right and experts believe that the Bill represents an advance and is right in many respects.
I must declare an interest in that I have been involved in the industry for more than 30 years, although not as a trade mark expert. I have been connected with trade marks that affect a business's progress. I am also connected with a number of companies that manufacture consumer goods

and, in view of my earlier intervention, it will not come as a great surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister if I concentrate primarily on that issue.
The need to include in the Bill powers to deal with the problem of look-alike products has already been explained to the House. My hon. Friend may say that the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for that, that representations have come too late or that other considerations need to be taken into account, but look-alike products are a serious and growing problem. Lookalikes is the generic term used in the industry. Such products have packaging and labelling deliberately designed to resemble the overall appearance of existing brand leaders.
The House will be aware that counterfeit goods are passed off as originals. That is rightly regarded as a criminal activity because it harasses legitimate manufacturers. However, producing look-alike goods is not a criminal activity although it is undesirable and, in my view, as morally reprehensible as passing off goods as something that they are not. It is subtle and deceptive.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South implied that the manufacturers of brand leaders want to run own-label goods off the supermarket shelves, but that is not the case. I must emphasise that I am not against own-label or own-brand products, whatever one wishes to call them. What the supermarkets and big retailers are doing is a perfectly legitimate sales operation, which has grown enormously in the past 25 years; it has added to competition and helped to increase sales and the prosperity of this country. However, I decry their deliberate imitation of brand-leader goods, which is wholly wrong. I shall not mince my words: it is cheating, and it is not legitimate competition, which is so necessary in our society. I am all in favour of proper competition, but it must be fair and should not involve the deliberate copying of someone else's products.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) is closely involved with the British Retail Consortium, the retailers' trade organisation. Via that organisation, retailers are making much of the fact that their own-label approach is in the consumer's interest and helps to reduce prices, but they have no logical excuse for blatantly copying other people's products in order to mislead or confuse the consumer into believing that it is the same product or from the same source. They ruthlessly and unscrupulously imitate goods with household names, and it is sometimes very difficult to tell at a glance which is the house brand and which the brand leader. There will be serious long-term consequences unless unfair competition legislation is introduced in due course.
Branded goods have been developed after considerable investment and with much expertise and research. Someone who gains from that investment by selling a look-alike product gains an unfair advantage. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South mentioned the share of the market gained by certain dog foods, by cornflakes and other products. It is extraordinarily important to remember that companies have developed their share of the market through their skill and by producing an excellent product. The fact that they have been able to obtain a large share should not be to their detriment. I am all against total monopoly; there is plenty of room available for others who want to come in to segment the market. However, I do not believe that it should be done in this way.
If the branded goods manufacturers are gradually run out of town—there were recent suggestions that at least


one big manufacturer was considering dropping one in five of its brand names because of falling markets—there will be a serious effect on employment, not only in manufacturing industry, but on allied industries.

Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend accept that in many cases, the branded goods manufacturer agrees to be the producer of the own-label or other look-alike product? What does my hon. Friend say to that?

Sir Dudley Smith: That is sometimes true. Speaking personally, it is not a process that I like or with which I agree. The vast majority of branded products are produced by a company that does not also produce a duplicate range for the supermarkets.
I was talking about the erosion of branded goods and the difficulties that it will present for employment and for our industrial effort; I think especially of television and newspapers. Consumer goods advertising is one of the bulwarks of the television industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), whom I see here today, probably knows more about advertising than any other hon. Member. He knows that advertising involves the jobs of hundreds of people. If we constantly erode the advertising base, we shall suffer the
consequences.
Perhaps even more important than the loss of jobs in various activities is the fact that branded goods sales in Europe and the rest of the world will be undermined. Who can carry on exporting if his home market is fatally undermined by lack of action by the Government:? We shall penalise ourselves, yet again, in terms of exports.
The consumer is called in aid by the retailers, and has already been referred to in this debate; I have no doubt that we shall hear of the consumer again. Will he be so pleased when, in years to come, he can buy any cornflakes, any soap powder or any toothpaste he likes as long as it is a Sainsbury's or a Tesco product? That will be a possibility as a result of the road down which we are going. Will he be happy when the supermarket chains, having cornered the market in branded goods, proceed to increase their prices? That is the logical end. We may get cheaper prices at first, but when a monopoly begins to be established as the branded goods drop off, extra charges will begin to be put on.
We used to pour scorn on the fact that in communist countries, only the state version of anything was available. I hope that in the years ahead, we shall not have to fight a rearguard action to save our own competitive practices. Supermarkets are rightly appreciated by the public because of their convenience, service and simplicity; we all use them. They have an important place in today's society, but surely they cannot be allowed to undermine and to finish off the branded goods industry as they have the small trader through the determination and advocacy that led to the Sunday Trading Bill.
I believe sincerely that the present Bill gives us an opportunity to do something about unfair competition. It is the first vehicle before the House for a long time which would allow a clause to prohibit the practice about which I have spoken and which would allow fairness for a significant part of British industry. The EC directive, which the Bill necessarily follows, gives that opportunity. I am subject to correction, but I do not believe that the practice to which I have referred is allowed in other European countries. I can see the day coming when we

shall have a European directive on this issue. We shall then have to comply with it, although we appear to be a little hesitant at present.
I realise from what my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he has no intention of accepting an amendment on this matter in Committee, so I suppose that it would be fruitless to table such an amendment. However, I warn him in the most friendly way that we shall inevitably have to come back to this issue. It is of great importance to many people —not only to the consumer, but to British industry. Those people are entitled to be heard and to have the foremost consideration in the matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a reasonable man, so I very much hope that he will take on board what I have said and what, I hope, other hon. Members will say as well. I hope that in due course, we shall see some light from the Government on the issue.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I quote:
Nid da He gellir gwell.
The motto of the Bettws comprehensive school in my constituency is appropriate to the debate for two reasons: first, this is a good Bill, and the motto means that there is no good that cannot be improved on; secondly, the young people at that school are looking to the Bill, although they may not know about it now, because it may have a profound effect on their futures. Almost the largest employer in my constituency, which is certainly the provider of the best-paid and highest-skilled jobs in my constituency, is the Patent Office. We look to the future of the Patent Office with some confidence based on its success in relocating in Newport, but also with some trepidation because of the many threats to it.
We shall want to make improvements to the Bill in Committee. I found the convoluted argument of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) rather strange. He seemed to say that the Bill was likely to take the'bread out of the mouths of billionaires. We see on the Conservative Benches two groups of vested interests: those who run the supermarkets and those who produce the main branded products. The two groups are in dispute; both are very prosperous. It is an artificial dispute because, in many cases, although the branded product has a different label, it is chemically identical to the product in the other
package. As the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) made clear, the reason is that many who manufacture branded goods also produce those goods for supermarkets where they are sold under own-name labels. The consumer has the choice between having branded names on her or his shelves for snob value or not paying the advertising costs and buying the unbranded goods—the supermarket's own brand. That is the real battle that is going on; in terms of the Bill, it is very much a side issue.
The Bill has been long awaited and will do a great deal of good. It comes after the almost complete relocation of the Patent Office from London to my constituency, which was the subject of an Adjournment debate in 1988. There has been a splendid report on that relocation by the National Audit Office. The report praises the relocation as a success which has worked in all aspects, especially the trade marks aspect.
The alteration or registration of trade marks almost always requires a face-to-face interview between the people who want to register the trade mark and the Patent Office. Many of the interviews are carried out in London, but some are carried out via video links and some are


carried out in Newport. I can foresee difficulties when the move is made to Alicante. Although that move may be inevitable, we must continue to ensure that the maximum number of registrations are carried out in this country and that we keep the national interest.
A matter about which I am greatly concerned may be dealt with under clause 5; I seek the Minister's guidance. I refer to the use to which trade marks are being put. There is one trade mark in particular, which has been used abroad and, to a small extent, in this country, on which I think we should legislate because it is used by companies in a way that is surreptitious and deceptive. We were all astonished when, about 30 years ago, one company, Guinness, advertised without using the name of its product. Now many products are advertised in a totally mysterious way, with advertisements which to many of us seem meaningless. Unfortunately, many of those advertisements are produced by cigarette companies, which have perfected the art of the advertisement that mentions neither the product nor the name of the company. There is a grave danger in that art, which we must address because there is a Bill going through the House at present that would ban the advertising of cigarettes. We know that there is a trade mark registered for cannabis cigarettes called Marleys, which may well have come about as a crime-reducing measure.
In other countries, cigarette advertising is banned. In Hungary, there is no advertising of cigarettes, but there has been an enormous growth in the consumption of cigarettes. Two brands in particular—Marlboro and Camel—are involved. The company that owns Marlboro has persuaded all the clubs and many of the pubs in the area to become Marlboro clubs. The signs above the clubs say "Marlboro Magyar Club"; they are in red and white and mimic the well-known Marlboro advertisements. Camel cigarettes are banned, but on almost every bus in Budapest there is a sign showing the familiar camel advertising not Camel cigarettes but Camel shoes; I do not know whether such shoes exist.
In Britain, Dunhill produces a whole range of goods which are advertised. It sells a cigarette lighter that looks similar to the design of the Dunhill cigarette packet. Also in this country we have recently seen subtle advertisements by a tobacco company which I shall not name, which uses blue and white and a certain kind of lettering. That company advertised at a sporting event in my constituency without mentioning the name of the company or the product; however, it was clear from the sign what it was advertising.
It is sad to note that those advertisements were criticised because it was claimed that, because of the moronic jokes that they included, they appealed especially to children and young people. Unfortunately, the danger is that the work of the House and its possible future decision to ban or to restrict the advertising of certain products, which may well happen with cannabis cigarettes, could be frustrated if we allow the trade marks for products to be used to advertise different products.
There would be no difficulty in avoiding that under clause 5, which lists a number of reasons why a trade mark should not be registered. It specifies, for example, that a product shall not be registered for goods or services similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected. I

should like some guidance, either later in the debate or in Committee, on whether that would apply to a cigarette company that decided to produce Silk Cut tee-shirts, trainers, computer games or anything else that might appeal to young people, thus advertising its product in a devious way and abusing its trade mark. I have no argument with companies such as that which owns Mars, which has used its product to advertise similar confectionery. There are frozen Mars bars, Mars drinks and so on and that seems perfectly legitimate. However, either we need a new clause or we need to expand clause 5 to ensure that that cannot happen in future, because I am afraid that the clever and subtle advertising that occurs could well mean that, against the wishes of the majority of hon. Members and the people of the country, advertisers get round the new laws.
The future of the Patent Office is of considerable importance and is certainly a matter of great concern in my constituency. While I do not wish to press the Minister on that matter with too much urgency, because we want the right decision rather than an early decision, may I gently remind him that in October he told me and a number of representatives of the Patent Office that a decision would be made by Christmas? There have been claims that a decision has, indeed, been made. It was claimed in The Daily Telegraph that the Price Waterhouse report suggested that what has been planned—possible privatisation, contractorisation, management buy-outs—was not practical because it would require primary legislation. I know that the Minister appreciates the anxiety felt by many people who work at the Patent Office and realises that they have been in a state of uncertainty for a long time. Although I do not want to press the hon. Gentleman to make a bad decision rapidly, I hope that he will give the matter serious consideration.
One point that I commend to the Minister, if he is considering the future of the Patent Office, is contained in a letter to the President of the Board of Trade from the Minister of State dated 14 February. The Minister of State, Welsh Office referred to a meeting attended by representatives of a number of unions and myself at which he said that the points about the future of the Patent Office and other agencies of the Department of Trade and Industry were strongly made. He went on to say:
It was suggested, for example, that the existing agency status could be developed further, to enable them
—the agencies—
to bid for a wider range of work.
That point may be developed in clauses 78 and 79, because they concern the register of trade mark agents. I hope that the Minister and his Department will seriously consider adding the comptroller general of the Patent Office to that register. If the chief executive of the Patent Office became a patent agent and a trade mark agent, it would be a useful way for the agency to improve and enlarge its role and make its role far more profitable.
There are resources available in the Patent Office which may be used profitably so that it becomes competitive in the uncertain years ahead. However, that means a change in the status of the office. The Patent Office has existed for a long period. The Government must not be hide-bound on the issue. There was a certain resistance to "next steps" agency status at first, but it has been a success in managerial terms and in the running of those bodies. They were great monoliths before and could not be run effectively by Ministers in Whitehall. There have been


obvious gains in management efficiency in the process and there are now about 75 such agencies. It would be a bad move if "next steps" agency status led to the further steps of contractorisation, a management buy-out or privatisation. In the case of the Patent Office, that would be especially disastrous.
At last, the Government are saying that certain bodies are unable to be privatised. It was a great pleasure to see that the Department of Transport recently decided that the Vehicle Inspectorate was one such body. There must be a similar case to be made in respect of the Patent Office. There is not a patent office in the world in commercial hands. The office cannot conceivably be placed in a position where it would be subject to commercial influential and control. Its independence is paramount; it must exist in that way. It has become a great national resource. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) paid tribute to it and we may take some pride in our role over the years as a world leader in the registration of patents and trade marks. The White Paper has already been mimicked in several countries—even before the introduction of the legislation—and the processes that take place in Britain lead the world. We cannot conceivably go down the at of contractorisation, privatisation or management buy-out.
Our intellectual property is a great national resource. It is difficult to think of the design on a can of baked beans as intellectual property, but it is of enormous value. It is a priceless resource. We have excelled at the fascinating business of registering patents and trade marks and vie can continue to do so. I appeal to the Government, and to the House generally, to invest in the Patent Office, expand its work and enlarge the area in which it works. The message is clear from the users of the Patent Office—those who register trade marks—from the industry generally and from the staff of the office at virtually every level: do not change the status of the Patent Office; we must remember that the Patent Office at Newport is a world brand leader; beware of cheap imitations.

Mr. Iain Mills: I am glad that there seems to be cross-party support for the Bill. It is a most significant and important measure. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) felt that we had been laggard in introducing it. I have some sympathy with that view—I should have liked to see it earlier—but having introduced it in the teeth of a fairly hectic parliamentary programme in the second year of the Government's office ain't half bad. The ensuing advantages to industry have been made clear in answers to my questions and in debate. All those who have spoken so far have referred to those important advantages.
A sad feature in one sense—if I am fortunate enough to be called to serve as a member of the Committee that will consider the Bill, I am sure that we shall go more fully into these matters—is that the office that will administer the Community trade mark, which is one of the main planks of the Bill, will be located at Alicante. I know that some hon. Members will say that it is an area of low employment. I am sure it is, but the United Kingdom has the necessary infrastructure.
I chaired a committee that considered measures designed to promote the interests of London. Against that background, the only serious location for intellectual

property of the sort that we are discussing is London. I should have said that any interests I have in intellectual property are clearly defined and registered in the Register of Members' Interests, which has recently been republished. Anyone who wants to read about any of my involvements will find the relevant information in the Register, including my chairmanship of the committee that considered the Community trade mark.
The Community trade mark office will be extremely important because it will to some extent, if it is not effective, become marginalised. Like the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), I have the greatest admiration for both the London and Welsh operations of the Patent Office, but we must remember that we are seeking the Community trade mark to lower costs for industry, especially for small and medium enterprises that are trying to build up their brands. It will be a disaster if we do not have a good and effective trade mark office to administer what we shall be enacting.
I have written to the comptroller general of the Patent Office to suggest a meeting between myself and members of the committee I represent—they are eminent people who are involved in intellectual property—to discuss, if not a sub-office in London, a facility rather like that which we have at Newport, where there could be videos, faxes and other electronic communications with Spain. I have written to Mr. Jacques Delors, who is well known to us all. His reassurances on the facilities that will be provided at Alicante leave me with some doubts. Air services and the ability for people to register trade marks give rise to doubts in my mind. We must proceed with the Bill, however, and I look forward with enthusiasm to the Committee stage, if I am involved.
There are aspects of the Patent Office's work that I should be happy to see privatised. I recognise, however, that the judicial and quasi-judicial features of Patent Office judgments would be difficult to put into private hands. Perhaps the privatisation of some aspects of registration and marketing could be considered. The Patent Office exercises a judicial function in making judgments when companies are in dispute over trade marks, and I would be concerned about privatisation in that context.
I welcome the Bill, because it will update the Trade Marks Act 1938, which is something that those of us who are involved in trade marks and intellectual property have been seeking for years. The Bill represents the best news that we have had for a very long time. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Bill implements the protocol to the Madrid conference, which the United Kingdom negotiated. It is rather miserable if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, is downscaling the benefits to Britain that will flow from the Bill. I hope that he will not be too negative when the Bill is examined in Committee.
I strongly support the Bill, but I have some questions for the Minister, which I shall put briefly. I have met him and warned him about most of my questions. The rights of representation for trade mark agents and trade mark courts are important. They reflect the Government's philosophy in introducing the Bill and trying to lower the costs of registering trade marks and patents for those in industry and business.
I am informed that trade mark agents do not have the same rights as patent agents in terms of a trade mark court, which would be a court of first instance. There is a means of lowering quite considerably the cost of registering trade


marks. I am informed that, in France and the Benelux territories, such as Holland, the cost of registering is between £3,000 and £5,000, whereas in the United Kingdom, because of the way in which our system works, it could be between £20,000 and £50,000. Everything that hon. Members have said about the value of trade marks to our companies, large and small, makes it that much more expensive to obtain registration and protection.
Many of those who are seeking registration are put off by the high cost of doing so. If there are international boundaries and difficulties in deciding where a case will be brought, the likelihood is that the companies concerned will seek to register their trade marks in France or in the Benelux countries.
The Community trade mark will help, but it is necessary that we have rights similar to those in other countries in Europe. That means that trade mark agents will be able to plead, just as patent agents do. I understand that most parties to the institutions that are concerned are happy—except, I guess, solicitors, who have right of audience and may not wish to see that right extended to trade mark lawyers.
Let us move to simplified court procedures, agreed facts, a statement of case, discovery only with the leave of the judge, and cross-examination on matters that we could discuss in Committee. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister and with the Lord Chancellor. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his letter of 8 February, stated:
The proposal to introduce a county court jurisdiction for trademark cases is not one to which the Department would be opposed in principle, but it is something which we would wish to consider carefully before committing ourselves to it.
My hon. Friend goes on to explain that it is not primarily a matter for the Bill, and I am happy to accept that. It is relevant, however, to the climate that the Bill will introduce, of lower costs for those who are wishing to involve themselves in the registration and protection of intellectual property.
The term trade mark attorney was discussed during the consideration of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill, as it then was, in Committee. It was discussed also in the other place on several occasions. I would hope to raise the matter if I am called upon to serve as a member of the Committee that will consider the Bill. I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will write to me if he feels that it is not appropriate to respond today—that at present a trade mark agent could call himself a trade mark attorney.
There is no inhibition, but there may be some who are involved in intellectual property, such as solicitors, who feel that the same level of qualifications as solicitors should be required. As a result of the Government's efforts and the responsibilities of the institute that represents trade mark agents, which it has accepted gladly, qualifications for agents have been introduced over the past few years that leave them extremely well qualified.
The structure of qualification is such that, should I wish to find another job and to qualify as a trade mark agent —I am already somewhat qualified in marketing—I would seek the leave of the House to spend time late at night not voting after debates, but studying carefully, as a solicitor would, to qualify to practise as a trade mark agent.
I want to raise a few brief matters with the Minister. The remedy for groundless threats is perhaps best left to Standing Committee. However, clause 19 provides a right of action against those who threaten retailers and other non-primary infringers—both manufacturers and importers—with infringement proceedings unless the trade mark proprietor can show that the acts complained of are an infringement. I hope that I will be able to raise the problem of groundless threats with my hon. Friend in Committee, as they are likely to disadvantage trade mark proprietors.
I was involved with the work of the anti-counterfeiting group long before I became a Member of this place. When I worked in the motor industry, I looked after new products, branding and counterfeiting. The anti-counterfeiting group is, by and large, satisfied with the agreements made in the other place in respect of the counterfeiting measures.
However, I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South that there are questions about the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service. Are we really happy about the problem of disclaimers, particularly with regard to the lower market car boot sales and the less responsible car boot sales, when we are keen to deregulate local authorities' powers in respect of trading standards officers? My constituency is in the centre of England, crossed by the M6 and the M42. We have an awful lot of car boot sales in my constituency, and I am concerned about the laundering of counterfeit products through those sales.
The Minister referred to Kent county council v. Price. Are we satisfied with that judgment? Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, I am concerned about the apparent ease of return of counterfeit goods when no court action is taken against an infringement. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me that that matter can be controlled, or that an amendment may be tabled to deal with that. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could reassure me on that point, either by letter or in Standing Committee.
Without such a provision, if the owner of the goods is identifiable, the trade mark owner will still be put to the trouble and expense of taking civil action, or threatening it. It has been recognised that we do not want counterfeit goods. We estimate that counterfeit goods cost more than 100,000 jobs in this country as they are brought in to compete with our brands. I seek advice from the Minister on that point.
I want now to consider lookalikes, and I assure the House that I will be brief, as other hon. Members have referred to them already. I have been involved in intellectual property in the House, and before I became a Member, for nearly 30 years. The late entry into the Bill in respect of lookalikes is controversial. I have some support for both sides, in that it is clearly competitive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) said, to have goods competing on the shelves.
As hon. Members have said, people who are selling products to big retailers may be producing the same goods, in the same packaging, as their own brands. Having examined the information and spoken to most of the key players over the past few days—I hope to meet representatives of the Consumers Association and the retailers when they come to the House tomorrow—I find it difficult to be convinced that the public are totally fooled by the fact that a bottle may be the same shape and colour, when the trade mark is clearly quite different.


Sainsbury markets Head and Shoulders, and also its own brand called Headway. In terms of legal action, that is not counterfeiting. It may he considered to be passing off, but I very much doubt it. I strongly suggest to the British Brand Owners and Producers Group, the Consumers Association, the retailers and anyone else involved—I spoke to most of the main parties on Friday and today—that they should get together and discuss the matter. If they believe that a legislative solution is required, they should offer a proposal to the Minister.
I recall with almost burning interest the problems we had in the Standing Committee that considered the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill. Group after group approached the Minister, or asked for my help to meet the Minister. The interests involved car part design versus car manufacture design. In that regard, who has the design rights—must match, must fit? The two parties must manage to iron out their differences and produce an acceptable proposal.
There have been discussions among the various parties. I have received a fax of a letter from Paul Walsh of the British Brand Owners and Producers Group. He states that the group has presented its case to the Government and to the standing advisory committee:
We have also had separate but inconclusive meetings with the Consumers Association. We would therefore be happy to meet with the British Retail Consortium
and the Consumers Association
in a further attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution to the problem of copying brands.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware of this, but, during the growth of own labels, there have been only 25 cases of manufacturers talking to retailers and they have been able to resolve their differences. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that such consultation has been informal, but it has worked.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments. Perhaps what she and I have said will help to persuade the two parties to get their heads together to produce a solution, instead of posing problems for the House and the Minister to resolve. There are clearly arguments on both sides. I do not wish to take sides, but I believe that the problem must be resolved. If we do not resolve it, a European solution may be imposed.
I want to leave some minor drafting points with the Minister. Clause 3 states that a sign shall not be registered as a trade mark if it is a
shape which gives substantial value to the goods.
That phrase is taken from the directive. Similarly, a trade mark shall not be registered if the application is made in bad faith. If an applicant files in respect of a very broad range of goods going far beyond those on which he does intend to use the mark, is that bad faith? No doubt the Standing Committee will have to examine what is in accordance with honest practices. As it is incurably vague, "honest practices" will be very difficult to define.
I want to end, as it would be most unfair of me not to leave sufficient time for this important Bill. The Minister rightly referred to the significance of trade marks and brands. Many companies are now assessing the value of their brands and including them on their balance sheets.
As chairman of the all-party motor industry group, I found it interesting when we talked to BMW. The people at BMW told me that they valued Rover's brands very highly. BMW purchased Rover not just because Rover was

most attractive in terms of work practices, cost-efficiency, unit labour costs and attitude: it purchased Rover because of its brands.
Increasingly, we must protect our companies from predatory purchasing—no longer because a company wants the factories or assets, but because that company wants the intellectual assets. I appreciate that the Minister has emphasised the importance of assessing brands. The Bill is important, and, if I am fortunate, I look forward to discussing it further.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As the debate proceeds, it is clear that we are finding controversy only around the edges, because there is wide agreement that the Bill is needed. Indeed, it has been needed for some considerable time, as it is more than 50 years since the last major piece of trade mark legislation in this country. The Bill appears to have hit the right balance in most areas. It seeks to simplify and lower the cost of trade mark legislation, and to achieve our obligations within the European Union, at a time when we are moving into the next round of talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I wonder whether the Minister can comment on the fact that it is unfortunate that two different systems of trade mark registration are being established almost simultaneously, as the Bill acknowledges—the Community trade mark and the international trade mark, which is promoted by the World Intellectual Property Organisation. I wonder whether there is a possibility of harmonisation, rather than divergence. If not, it is clear that we will be back here in a few years to see how we operate in that situation. We should be aiming for a worldwide system, rather than two different systems.
The Bill addresses in some detail anomalies that have been outstanding for some time, such as introducing the idea of a sign that can be represented graphically. I know that at least the Coca-Cola people wish that that had happened a little earlier, because it would have saved them some money. There are others for whom the development is obviously welcome. The Bill has also got rid of one or two anomalies, such as the idea that drug manufacturers can register the colour coding of their pills. That seems to take the matter to an absurd degree, but SmithKline-French got away with it for a while.
The reference to lookalikes seems to have sparked off the liveliest debate. That may be because, in a technical and specialised area, it is the one area of populism with which even the tabloid newspapers can get to grips. Obviously, the issue is generating heat, even if light is not flooding in everywhere at present.
I can understand why people who have invested money in developing innovative products, marketing them, advertising them and securing acceptance for their brand names may want to protect their investment. However, marketing in the proper sense of the word is the best way to protect the investment. The quality of the product, the quality of the marketing and the consumer's acceptance of the product ensure that branded goods secure a premium position in the market.
People know that branded goods are more expensive than own-label goods. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), someone like Kellogg—which produces a basic commodity—has two simple practices. First, it makes it clear, and


advertises, that it makes the product for no one else; if people want the product, they must buy it under the company's brand name.
While the hon. Gentleman said that it was disgraceful —perhaps it was disgraceful in the context in which he referred to it—that Kellogg was somehow trying to protect the price level at which its product entered the market, nevertheless he acknowledged that it was the brand leader at that price. Clearly people believe that it is worth spending more money to buy Kellogg's Cornflakes than any other cornflakes.
In addition, do we need to amend this or any other legislation to protect the position of Kellogg in the market? The Armageddon suggested by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)—the elimination of brand products—takes a lot of believing in reality. Indeed, I have a great deal of confidence that most of our manufacturers and marketers of fast-moving consumer goods know how to ensure that they stay ahead of the game.
At the risk of detaining the House any longer on this matter, I should say that the debate has a slightly historical connection for me. In a previous incarnation a long time ago, I worked as a buyer of proprietary products for Boots the Chemist. At that time, I discovered that Boots was wasting an awful lot of space marketing its own brand of toothpaste, and it was losing the company money. When Boots realised that, it decided to discontinue its own brand
and market Colgate; it subsequently produced a better product, and marketed it more successfully. That shows that own branding does not always come out on top, even in profitability.
The representation we received from Boots summarises the matter well. The company has some qualification to make a special plea that it is in the unusual position—the company describes it as "probably unique"—of being a major manufacturer of branded products such as Nurofen, Strepsils and so on; a contract manufacturer of own-label products; and one of the largest retailers of own brands which are accepted as national brands in their own right, such as Boots No. 7 cosmetics.
Boots summarised its position by saying:
We do not believe that a wish on the part of manufacturers to protect market share is in itself a reason for legislation which can only operate against the public interest.
In referring to the amendment tabled in another place, Boots said:
The remedy is to develop and launch an even better product that leaves the competitor standing … This amendment is protectionist, anti-competitive and clearly against the public interest.
That sums up the situation well.
I have no objection to the argument that those who believe that there is a point of concern should talk about it, but I am not at all sure that the House should do anything about it; indeed, I am glad that the Minister has said that he does not intend to do anything in terms of this Bill.
It is interesting that the Bill has addressed some issues that have caused controversy. For example, it recognises that we can have a concept of well-known makes; clearly, that is a Community idea which has been imported here. It also provides a new protection that does not exist in United Kingdom law at present, which allows goods to take advantage of an established reputation. Whatever the merits of the argument, presumably it would have

foreclosed in advance the elderflower champagne argument and, ultimately, would have saved both sides some money.
It is also interesting that the Bill specifically provides for the introduction of collective marks. That seems a useful way of enabling smaller businesses to group together and secure the brand identity of products in the market which they could not afford to secure individually. That is a welcome and positive development, as is the recognition that where small businesses have been trading under a name locally, they will continue to be allowed to use that name even if a similar name has been registered nationally.
Once again, that arises out of the Chelsea Girl and Chelsea Man case. Chelsea Girl tried to prevent a small shop from operating under the Chelsea Man image; Chelsea Girl tried to shut it down. That was a case in which a big operator managed to invest in registering its brand and tried to shut down someone who had been in business long before the big operator. I am glad that the Bill recognises that situation and seeks to protect small local businesses by allowing them to operate within a locality, given that they have already established their reputation even though they have not registered the brand name.
The provisions relating to infringement and the remedies for infringement clearly recognise the way in which things have moved since 1938. Big business needs to take on board the potential disadvantages of being so successful in its branding that a brand becomes generic, and it can no longer protect it. The question whether the Hoover company has necessarily lost by that is debatable. I think that Hoover lost more as a result of the way in which it promoted the brand, rather than the quality of the brand itself.
One issue that arises is that exclusive licensees will be able to bring infringement proceedings in their own name without having to wait two months to see whether the proprietor commences proceedings. It has been argued that the Bill says that non-exclusive licensees must still wait two months. The simple question is: why is there a distinction?
In the context of a major national brand, two months is probably not a long time. However, for a small retailer, two months may be the difference between being profitable and being forced into loss. It is not clear why that time delay is still allowed in the Bill. It has been suggested that, at the very least, there should be a provision to allow an interlocutory injunction while a case is pending. That seems to me to be in the interest of small business rather than big business.
In general terms, the Bill clearly has support on both sides of the House, and it meets needs that we must address under international and national obligations in an area of law which certainly needs updating. There has been some comment on the delay, and some concerns have been expressed about the role of the Patent Office. The Minister must take on board the fact that, in updating and changing the intellectual property law, we should be mindful of what is going on outside the United Kingdom.
We should not do anything to prejudice either the interests of our businesses or our ability to ensure that British practice becomes part of the shaping of international practices. Rather than making any ideological attack on the Minister about the future of the Patent Office, I would ask him and the Government to be mindful of those considerations.


I am sure that he will recognise that we have a reputation in this area, not least because we have some world brand leaders and because we have been succesful at brand marketing. We must also ensure that changes and updates that may be necessary advance our interest, and do not set it back. The important thing is trade marks, patenting and intellectual property as it matters to UK business, and ideology should not get in the way of it. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that that is the balance that matters.

Mr. John Whittingdale: As has been said, this is largely a technical Bill and, despite the valiant efforts of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), I suspect that it is unlikely to generate too much party political controversy. I therefore do not wish to detain the House for too long.
Nevertheless, it is an important Bill and one for which British business has been calling for a long time. The central concern of the Bill is protection of intellectual property, and it is closely related to the laws governing counterfeiting and piracy which are increasing dramatically. One of the helpful results of the Bill will be that it will provide a clearer and less ambiguous definition of what is a trade mark.
Some have tried to argue that trade marks are an attempt by manufacturers to inhibit competition or to create a type of monopoly. I do not accept that argument. I believe strongly that trade marks are in the interests of consumers. They are an essential means of identifying a manufacturer's product and they are frequently symbols which are guarantees of quality. They are also labels of origin which are an acceptance by manufacturers of responsibility for the product which bears them.
The law rightly confers on the owners of trade marks protection to prevent them from being abused by other manufacturers. Those who attempt to abuse are trying to con the public, pass off goods as being of a different origin and defraud manufacturers of the genuine article. Manufacturers, it has been said, frequently invest millions of pounds in the advertising and promotion of their products. They are also entitled to protection to ensure that that investment is not stolen by companies that pass off the goods as being of a different origin.
I therefore strongly welcome the provisions of the Bill. A harmonisation of the laws on trade marks across the European Community will be of great benefit to British business. I have not always been a totally enthusiastic supporter of all matters related to integration across Europe, but, in this instance, I firmly believe in the single market. Like my hon. Friends, I have taken pleasure in pointing out the excellent record of the Government in implementing single market measures. This particular one has been a glaring omission and I am therefore pleased that we can now add it to our record. It is high time that we did so.
The measures to implement the Madrid agreement are of equal importance. The protection of trade marks and copyrights cannot be achieved on a national, or even a Community, basis alone. They must be tackled internationally and that is one of the reasons why the general agreement on tariffs and trade was so important.
I want to say a few words on piracy and counterfeiting which have been mentioned in the debate. There is no

doubt that piracy is costing industry millions of pounds every year. The video industry has estimated that it loses £150 million each year through counterfeiting. Gucci has said that it costs the watch industry £450 million each year, and makers of perfume, jeans, computer software and sports equipment are all victims of counterfeiting.
Manufacturers lose sales and the consumer loses any form of protection given to him by law. Usually, the quality of counterfeit goods is poor and the product frequently is not even safe. Recently in Essex, trading standards officers discovered that even the spare parts of cars were being sold under counterfeit brand names. Those spare parts were not just of poor quality, but were unsafe and certainly would have led to serious accidents if they had been used.
Every-day products are sold in car boot sales and by street traders in Oxford street and elsewhere which purport to be brand-named goods. In many cases, the consumers who buy them know that they are not the genuine article since they are paying sometimes one tenth of the price. Nevertheless, manufacturers are still losing sales as a result and their products are being devalued.
The Bill will help improve the situation. It will extend the definition of trade marks and make it easier to register them. The provision to prevent traders selling so-called brand copies is particularly welcome. Traders have attempted to get around the existing law by placing disclaimers on the goods and by acknowledging that they are copies. That has been become a commonplace practice at car boot sales where trading standards officers have been powerless to act. I welcome the fact that the Bill closes that loophole.
However, I am disappointed that the Bill does not go further. In particular, it will not benefit copyright goods such as compact discs and music cassettes. Traders simply delete the trade mark since the product is sold, not on the basis of that trade mark, but on the basis of the artwork, packaging and content. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the music business to this country. It is one of our most successful industries, contributing some £800 million in exports and invisible earnings. Indeed, it is hard to think of any other field in which British artists and performers have such a commanding lead.
Yet the music industry is seriously threatened by piracy, with thousands of counterfeit CDs pouring out of China and elsewhere. It is estimated that 14 per cent. of music sales in Europe are now pirate recordings, rising to 30 per cent. in Asia and the middle east and to more than 50 per cent. in Latin America. That is not only depriving British record companies of potential exports worth about £160 million, but it is affecting the domestic market.
By simply removing the company trade mark—while otherwise copying every aspect of the packaging—traders will be able to sell goods without fear of seizure by trading standards officers. I recognise the argument by my hon. Friend the Minister that the Bill is narrowly defined and is concerned simply with trade marks. I still regret that it was not possible to include a provision to allow trading standards officers to seize goods that they believe infringe the Copyright Act 1911, as they will be able to do in future for those goods that they believe infringe the trade mark laws. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the matter again and see whether there is any way in which the Bill may be amended to allow the problem to be addressed.


Finally, I hesitate to plunge into the argument between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on the subject of look-alike products. However, I recognise that there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of look-alike products sold by major retailers. Frequently, they are manufactured and marketed under similar names in similar packaging to the brand name goods with which they are competing. It is, therefore, understandable why the manufacturers of the original brands should feel aggrieved and should want the provisions of the Bill to be extended to ban look-alike products. Although I understand their view, I could support such a measure only if I thought that consumers were buying such products believing them to be the branded article. The fact that they are usually sold next to the brand-name product and at a cheaper price suggests that they are not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) has already referred to opinion surveys that show that consumers purchase look-alike products knowing that they are not brand-name products. I therefore tend to share the view of the Consumers Association that outlawing own brands would have nothing whatever to do with consumer protection but everything to do with market protection.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that own-brand retailers such as Sainsbury, Boots and Tesco essentially market a brand image and that they need to maintain a quality standard if they are to sustain consumer confidence?

Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely accept that. Those manufacturers have taken great pride in the quality of their products and it is clearly in their interests that all their products should be of a high quality. If not, they would do substantial damage to their general image.
However, retailers have a duty to ensure that their own brands are not too similar to branded products. I understand the argument that the shape of a container may be dictated by its function, and I should not want a manufacturer to be given a monopoly over a product's shape or function, but if it becomes apparent that the only reason for choosing a feature or shape is to increase the product's similarity to a branded product, the manufacturer of the brand-name product would be entitled to take action under existing law covering the passing off of goods.
Although the law already covers that problem, I hope that both manufacturers and retailers will take advantage of the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who has a long and distinguished history in the field, to come together and discuss what can be done to allay the fears that undoubtedly exist among brand-name manufacturers.
The Bill represents a valuable step forward in increasing the protection of trade marks and thus intellectual property. It is no doubt a field in which British companies need all the protection that they can get. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will see whether protection can be increased in any other way, particularly to cover the problems faced by the music industry. If it is not possible to amend the Bill to cover that problem, I hope that in the near future he will consider introducing additional legislation to deal with it.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Minister and the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I could not escape from an earlier meeting. Secondly, may I, at the outset, declare an interest—I am a parliamentary consultant to Chanel. I am grateful to Chanel for its briefing, but wish to make it clear that any opinions that I express are entirely mine and should not be laid at its door.
Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the Government on the Bill—on how it has been presented and on the accent that it has placed on the seriousness of trade marks and counterfeiting. From what I have heard from the professions involved outside the House, thanks are due to my hon. Friend's departmental officials for their consultations and positive reactions to representations made to them. In the same breath as welcoming the Bill, may I welcome the amendments that the Government made in another place, particularly the closure of the loophole in current legislation, which does not allow the seizure of goods in the form of a trade mark—a small element of counterfeiting—and the criminal provisions forbidding the use of the phrase "brand copy" or similar phraseology. Those are both important small additions to the Bill for which the Government deserve praise.
I also welcome the easier qualification of trade marks for registration, the simpler procedures for assigning trade marks and the better protection of trade marks overseas. I hope that that will lead to general ratification by all European Community members of the protocol to the Madrid agreement on the international registration of trade marks. Will my hon. Friend the Minister reassure me about the Government's position on that?
I wish to raise one or two questions, the first of which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand better than most because you have shared with me a certain amount of time in the woolly world of advertising. It concerns comparative advertising. I am worried about the effect of clause 9, which can weaken the trade mark's legal protection. That would run contrary to the thrust and point of the Bill. It could allow unknown or lesser-known competitors to ride in unfairly on the coat tails of brands that are well established in the marketplace at the cost of those brand producers, and could even mislead consumers. I should prefer the whole question to wait upon the European Community trade marks directive, which the Bill has over-anticipated. The directive on misleading advertising will probably appear in the next few months and certain words have been suggested as a specific clause to deal with imitation products:
comparisons must not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods and services which are already protected by registered trade marks, trade names, and/or designations of origin.
Whether we adopt those words now as an amendment to the Bill, or postpone action until the directive exists, the directive will come down the road towards us and this country, like others in the European Community, will have to fall in line. That is particularly the case as the Government have emphasised their intention to achieve that position on other trade mark issues. So I hope that action on that front can be delayed.
In the meantime, if action is to be taken, it is important to understand properly the meaning of "unfair use". The concern has been expressed to me that the clause could lend itself to litigation to establish the meaning of "unfair


use". In the interests of clarity and certainty, and even if it may keep some business away from my hon. and learned Friends who are lawyers, it would be better to deal with the matter as straightforwardly as possible. On that basis, I hope that the Community wording will be adopted. The overriding concern must be that comparative use of trade marks is fair and safeguards are sufficient.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), may I say a word about lookalikes? What has been said so far may have caused people to mix up the problem of lookalikes and the question of private labelling. The problem of lookalikes is about identifying an act of unfair competition to supply goods that look similar by shape, colour, design or name to goods with a distinctive appearance, where it would take unfair advantage of that appearance or lead to an association between the goods.
The Paris convention on the protection of intellectual property requires EC countries to provide effective protection against such forms of unfair competition. The United Kingdom, unlike most of the rest of Europe, has no such legislation. The directive itself must conform with the Paris convention, and the Government aim to align the Bill with the directive.
It seems from the debate in another place that the Government believe that they are fulfilling their obligations under the Paris convention by means of the laws governing trade mark infringement and consumer protection. It was on that basis that an amendment was withdrawn in another place while the Government reviewed the matter. I understand from what the Minister said that the review has taken place and it has been decided not to include such a measure—I therefore hope that a further review will take place.
I welcome the Government's confirmation of the serious nature of product counterfeiting and their requirement to retain current sentencing provisions—an unlimited fine and up to 10 years' imprisonment. I hope that the courts will bear that in mind when dealing with counterfeiting cases. As we know, sentences are sometimes provided for the courts, but then not sufficiently used, even though certain cases may deserve them.
Counterfeiting certainly acts to the detriment of consumers, who are entitled to expect protection against products that are not what they claim to be, of legitimate retailers, who are entitled to expect fair competition, and of brand owners, who are entitled to expect protection for the branded products in which they have invested and for which they have offered quality control guarantees. It is to the advantage of this country that we set an example in our legislation, with effective enforcement and deterrent sentencing.
The Government have offered reassurances in another place that police and trading standards officers continue to have a duty to enforce the criminal laws against counterfeiting. I should welcome further confirmation from my hon. Friend of police powers and duties in this respect.
My last worry concerns the doubts that some have expressed about when the Bill, if it passes smoothly through its parliamentary stages, will become law. I am led to believe that that is unlikely to happen before the end of the year. If so, it will allow counterfeiters to exploit the weaknesses of current legislation during the most lucrative time of the year—the build-up to Christmas. It would thus be of significant benefit to the prosecuting authorities, to

legitimate retailers, to consumers and to brand owners if the Bill were delayed as little as possible and if the Government made every effort to ensure that at least the anti-counterfeiting provisions come into force by September or October. If the Minister cannot reassure me about that today, I hope that he will do so at a later date.

Mr. McLoughlin: Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has given the Bill—in general —a warm welcome. It would be wrong to answer some of the questions that have been asked in a Second Reading closing speech, but they will be dealt with in Committee.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) did his best as an Opposition spokesman to attack the Bill in the expected manner, but he may have gathered from the tenor of the rest of the debate that this really is not the sort of Bill that demands his sort of attack. It comes a little rough to hear him criticising the Government for not being consistent on Europe; his party has changed its policy on Europe at every single general election. The same goes for his accusations that we are putting extra costs on British industry; his party would implement the social chapter, so that, too, was a bit of a joke. I therefore cannot take too seriously some of his objections.
I am nevertheless grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome for the Bill and in Committee we shall —rightly—examine some of the important cases and points that he highlighted.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned the review at the Patent Office. We had hoped to make an announcement about that before today, but we are not in a position to do so. We shall make one to Parliament in due course.
I am grateful for the credit that the hon. Member for Newport, West gave to the operations of the Patent Office. I seem to recall hearing him, in the distant past, attacking "next steps" agencies of other kinds—

Mr. Flynn: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Leader of the House who, in an uncharacteristic moment, paid tribute to my work criticising the lack of accountability of "next steps" agencies, and said that he agreed with my campaign, supported by the Rowntree Foundation, which aimed to get the Government to publish replies from "next steps" agencies. Those replies used not to be published in Hansard: now they are.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get across some of his points to a caring and listening Government.
I recognise immediately the expertise that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) brings to the subject. Probably most of his questions will be dealt with in greater detail in Committee. He asked me about trade mark attorneys. Proposals concerning the use of the title trade mark attorneys were received only recently, so it is difficult to give full consideration to that at this stage. Again, it is doubtless a point for Committee.
My hon. Friend also asked me about county courts. He will know that the Government are considering extending their jurisdiction to allow them to hear trade mark cases. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, however, contains all the necessary powers to confer such jurisdiction on county courts, so it would be wrong to use this Bill for that purpose. I know that my hon. Friend has


made representations on the subject to the Lord Chancellor and I have no doubt that we shall discuss it again in Committee, as it is important.
In my opening speech, I explained why I believed that the proposals in the Bill deal with a number of the points that arose out of the Kent County Council v. Price case. We shall return to that in Committee, too. It is related to many of the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talked about establishing two systems. The establishment of a Community mark as well as the international protocol is not at all unfortunate. Those systems are complementary and provide international business with a choice, according to where its interests lie. The confusion suggested by the hon. Member does not really exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon made some wider points about counterfeiting; some of what he said certainly concerns the British Phonographic Institute. It has discussed those concerns with me. We are dealing primarily with trade mark legislation rather than counterfeiting legislation, and it is important that that is understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked about comparative advertising, which is addressed in clause 10. My information is that clause 10 does not go against the draft directive on comparative advertising. Clause 10(6) is very much in tune with the directive in its most recent draft. My hon. Friend asked why comparative advertising was allowed to be used. The Government's intention was announced in the White Paper. We think that the present position is too restrictive on competition.
It is reasonable to be able to identify competing products by reference to their trade marks. However, use must be in accordance with honest practice. To do otherwise would allow an unknown brand, for example, to get a leg up on the chain by claiming equivalence with the

brand on which the marketing effort was being expanded. We shall return to that issue in Committee and possibly on Report.
May I put my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes right on the issue of lookalikes. As I said, the Government have not yet taken a view. We are consulting on the matter, but at this stage we do not think that the issue can be addressed under trade marks legislation. I think that that also answers the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D.Smith). I can tell him that that matter did not come up during the early part of consultation on the Bill, but came to us fairly late. Many of my hon. Friends raised that matter in the debate.
The Bill will replace an outdated Act that has ceased to serve the best interests of industry and commerce by making it easier to register a trade mark, widening the rights given to a registered trade mark and deregulating procedures. United Kingdom companies will undoubtedly benefit. The international aspects should enable those companies that export their branded products to register more easily and protect their trade marks overseas. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords] [MONEY]:

Queen's Recommendation signified.

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Marks Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Orders of the Day — TRADE MARKS BILL [Lords] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Marks Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of applications and registration and other matters under the Act.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Orders of the Day — Isle of Wight (Structural Change)

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That the draft Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has carefully followed all the debates, has made many representations and has kept himself closely in touch with opinion throughout the island. I hope that the legislation attracts widespread approval in his constituency. I hope that in subsequent orders we shall achieve a similar measure of consensus, because that would be helpful.
The draft order gives effect to the Local Government Commission's main recommendations for local government structure on the Isle of Wight. We think that more effective and convenient local government on the island will be achieved by establishing a unitary authority for the whole island—the commission's first recommendation—and that that will reflect the identities and interests of local people. That recommendation has received all-party support from the local authorities on the island and from both district and county councils.
The order provides for reorganisation on 1 April 1995. On that date, the functions and powers of the borough councils will transfer to the Isle of Wight county council, which will become the sole principal council for the island and will be known as the Isle of Wight council. I emphasise that under reorganisation entirely new councils will be established. We are not debating the takeover of somebody by somebody else—the destruction of one form of council and the exaltation of another form. What emerges will be borrowed from both, but will be different from both as they are presently constituted.
To ensure a smooth transition to the new structure, the county council will be given some extra powers from 3 May. Those will enable it to make the necessary preparations, including budget setting, and appoint staff for the assumption of its full competence under its new powers the following April.
In response to local views, we are providing for elections to the Isle of Wight council in May 1995 so that councillors with a fresh mandate may take over responsibility for providing all local authority services. The Local Government Commission recommended that the unitary authorities should continue to produce separate local and structure plans. In the only amendment that we have made to the commission's proposals, we say that the planning needs of the island would be better served if the unitary authority were to prepare a unitary development plan rather than to continue the two-tier planning system. The draft order provides for such a requirement.
It will probably be more helpful to the House if I confine my introduction to those remarks. By leave of the House, I shall sum up and answer questions that are directed to me.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The Minister said that he wants to expedite the business of the House by reserving his position until questions are posed to which he will try to provide answers. I am pleased that he has taken that position because a number of

questions are pertinent to the Isle of Wight and also to the order's implications for the rest of the country. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on such matters.
The Minister is aware that local government reorganisation is controversial in the areas that are affected —potentially in 39 county areas and in various district councils. It is controversial within the political parties. As the Minister will also know, it appears to be controversial in such beautiful parts of the country as Oxfordshire and, I think, Norfolk. I have always believed that it is never wise to listen to too much gossip in the House, but there is considerable gossip that reorganisation is controversial in parts of Suffolk—even in south Suffolk. Plainly, many hon. Members are deeply concerned about the matter and I share many of those concerns.
I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition firmly support the principle of the establishment of unitary authorities in England. We have not been converted recently to that: we have believed in it for a long time, and even before the 1974 reorganisation of local government. We support the principle because we believe that boundaries that can be established on a unitary basis in many instances better reflect the communities that the local authorities based in those boundaries seek to represent. There is a sense of identity that is sometimes missing from the structure of local government in some parts of the country.
The Opposition have also supported the principle of unitary authorities because an effective and efficient unitary authority can avoid duplication—of which, as many hon. Members know, there are many instances in local government. On planning, for example, district and county councils have to liaise and there is sometimes a certain amount of difficulty in understanding who has responsibility for what. On recreation and the link with school sports, there can often be different responsibilities for providing similar facilities.
The avoidance of duplication has always been impressed on me as being important. Cost savings may not necessarily occur, but they can accrue if there is greater efficiency, better service and more value for money. That would allow more services to be provided to communities throughout the country for the same money available now. If more money were allocated, even more facilities could be provided if efficiency gains are made.
One strong argument in favour of unitary authorities is that the public know who is responsible for issues affecting them and administered by local government. I have always found that helpful in my own local authority. The public know that if the matter is one dealt with by local government, Newcastle city council is the responsible authority. They do not have to determine whether it is a district or county council issue. Those arguments have long been held by the Opposition in supporting unitary councils.
I shall comment on how the order will impact on the Isle of Wight, but also refer to its implications for the other 30 authorities.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Although the House may have a wide-ranging debate as to the order's effects on the Isle of Wight, I caution the hon. Gentleman against extending his remarks to the rest of the country.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for that reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before entering the Chamber, I


noted that I should refer only to general issues affecting the Isle of Wight, but which may have similar implications elsewhere.
With specific reference to the Isle of Wight, the Opposition support the establishment of a unitary authority. Island authorities are different and the order reflects their special position. It is similar to the type of authority established in the Scottish islands, where there is general agreement that a unitary authority is the best way forward.
Representatives of work people in the Isle of Wight and both district councils informed me that although the people of the Isle of Wight support a unitary council, they do not support a takeover by the existing county council of the functions of district authorities. People view as democratic the establishment of a new Isle of Wight authority that would embrace the powers previously held by the county council and district councils.
If a new authority is not established from the word go in new elections in which the people of the Isle of Wight can judge who they want to represent them, it is likely that the authority will get off to the wrong start. Some practices prevalent in the old county council, but which the new authority might want to change, could become re-established. When a new authority was eventually elected in May 1995, it would be unable to change established practice. That would put district authority staff at a disadvantage by comparison with county council staff, because they will prepare the plans for the new authority. That strengthens the argument for a democratic structure from the word go, in which new councillors bring together the experience of the county council and district councils in saying how they believe the authority should be shaped in future.

Mr. Curry: This should not become a point of contention, so perhaps it would be helpful if I intervened. If the successor organisation is coterminous with an existing organisation, we have no choice but that it should acquire the formal status of the existing council. On the Isle of Wight, we decided to entrust the county with preparing the elections because the overwhelming majority of representations were to do that, so that the new authority could be established. It is clearly intended—it is spelt out —that virtually the first act of the new council will be to hold elections. Elsewhere in the country, in the overwhelming number of cases—I say that because one does not know the exact circumstances—it is the intention to hold shadow elections that will prepare for the new councils, and the hon. Gentleman's point will be met. In the Isle of Wight, the circumstances are a little particular, which is why we chose the route that we did.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister anticipated my question. Many legal interpretations of the Local Government Act 1992 confirm the Minister's assertion that where boundaries are coterminous, the Government have no option but to proceed in the way that they intend. Given that situation, is there not political advantage to all in acknowledging that weakness and that any new structure would be strengthened by having a democratic basis from the word go? Even in the Isle of Wight, where there is no great opposition to the concept of a unitary authority, there is enormous strength of feeling on the issue. That perhaps

undermines the arguments for a unitary authority there—but that concern would pale into insignificance by comparison with the opposition that the Minister would meet in other parts of the country, where there may be a majority but no consensus on what should happen.
I will give way to the Minister, if he will confirm that with every other order that comes before the House, there will be no question of not establishing a shadow authority from the word go.

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of Cleveland we indicated that we are considering whether to follow the Isle of Wight precedent, to get the new authority operational, where there is a shift to councils that are established—in the sense that no entirely new entities are being created. Our general intention, however, is to have shadow elections, for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman gave—and particularly so that people may feel that recruitment, and so on, is on a level playing field.

Mr. Henderson: My interpretation of the Minister's intervention—he will correct me if I am wrong—is that there may be circumstances in which, in instances where boundaries are coterminous with existing boundaries, the Government will not feel under an obligation to initiate a shadow authority from day one. If I am right—and I note that the Minister does not seek to intervene again—that will cause considerable concern throughout the country. I can assure the Minister, on the basis of telephone calls that I received all last week, at the weekend and this afternoon, that many authorities have a deep interest in the matter.

Mr. Michael Bates: indicated assent.

Mr. Henderson: At least one Conservative Member acknowledges that that is so. Those authorities will be watching this debate like hawks for any guarantee that will prevent something being imposed in future that they would find unacceptable.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I express my appreciation to my hon. Friend on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House with an interest in Cleveland for teasing that out of the Minister. Many in Cleveland will be deeply disappointed at not having a chance of democratic elections as part of any changes.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my interpretation. I should not like to be left standing in the cold on the platform at Darlington station on my way to Newcastle, with a lobby of Cleveland councillors asking me for a definitive interpretation of the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Curry: I always acknowledge the dexterity of Opposition Members in teasing out of me something that we stated publicly to the local authority associations.

Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that that takes the debate much further. Local authority associations may tell me that even after teasing something out of the Minister, they are not clear what it means.

Mr. Bates: Had not Cleveland county council decided to waste taxpayers' money by challenging in the High Court the decision of the local government commissioner, the situation that the hon. Gentleman advocates could have been possible.

Mr. Henderson: I understand the strong views that are held in Cleveland and I will not comment on a case that may go before the courts. If the courts endorse the view that an error was made in the way that recommendations were prepared, it would be difficult for hon. Members to be critical of a county council that took action to protect the services in its area. Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited, he should wait for the court to make its announcements on that subject.
I shall try to categorise my comments into two parts. The second part is about the implications of the order on the rest of the review, or, in other words, the general principles that apply to the order and which will apply also to the rest of the review. There are many suspicions in the country about the Government's motives in the order and elsewhere. I notice the Minister smiling at that point, so he obviously recognises, as I have, that that is the case. There are suspicions, because many people throughout the country, especially in areas such as Cleveland and Humberside, fear that, with the local government review, the Government are attempting to cherry-pick or pick off councils with which they do not agree—for example, Labour-controlled councils and councils that have adopted policies with which the Government differ.
Other suspicions are held by people who want to have a review and have a unitary authority established in their area. They feel that they will not have that opportunity, because the Government will run for cover after cherry picking Cleveland and Humberside and not complete the review. That would mean that some areas—in, for example, East Anglia, the midlands and the south—that would want a review, to have the chance to make the case for a unitary authority, will not have the opportunity to do so. They do not believe that the review will be completed.
I can understand why those suspicions exist, because local government members in areas such as south Norfolk and Oxfordshire—I have even heard it said of members in parts of Yorkshire, who are in power—are opposed to the review and the impact that it will have on their areas. It will not be easy for the Government to ramrod any order that they want through the House. If the Government want the support of the House for their orders, they will have to make arguments that can be supported by hon. Members and which will take on board or counteract the suspicions that are held not only by hon. Members but by councillors, officers of authorities, staff and the public in many parts of the country. I do not want the local government review to be discredited. I do not want it to lose public support, but I believe that, if the Government cannot allay those suspicions, there is a risk that the whole review will be sidetracked into oblivion.
I make the Opposition's position clear to the Government. We stated in meetings that were held with authorities throughout the country that we will examine each order on its merit. But that approach is not without condition. The Government should not take our attitude to the order as a signal of our attitude to mainland reorganisation. I warn the Government tonight that parliamentary support for the procedures of the review will depend on undertakings being given on the following five issues: first, that the review will be thorough and genuinely cover the country as a whole; that there will be no cherry picking of areas such as Cleveland, Humberside, Derbyshire or Avon; that the review will be completed; that recommendations will be acted on; and that consistent principles will be adopted throughout.
Secondly, there should be no gerrymandering of specific boundaries for narrow party political advantage. Thirdly, in shadow authorities, there should be all-out elections—as I argue for the Isle of Wight—from day one. Fourthly, in subsequent years, a third of the council should be up for election annually. That could be advantageous for the Government, because if they accepted condition three —that there should be all—out elections—and suffered an horrendous defeat, if there are elections on the basis of a third of the council, it is easier for the Government to recoup some of their position in later years. So there may be strong arguments in that for the Government. Fifthly, the Government should meet the reasonable representations that will be made to them by the staff commission about the way in which staff are treated when their jobs have been changed as part of the reorganisation.
I do not wish to detain the House further than is necessary, but I should like the Minister to reconsider establishing a shadow authority on the Isle of Wight. If primary legislation is required to achieve that, I assure him that there will be no obstruction from the Opposition.
The Minister will recognise that he has a problem, because it will be difficult for the Government to get any recommendations through the House in relation to reorganisation. We support the principle of unitary authorities, but we want that principle to be established fairly. I do not believe that it can be, unless those five conditions are met.

Mr. Barry Field: In the Southampton Evening Echo last week, my star sign said:
The world owes its onward impulses to those who are ill at ease; permanently happy individuals confine themselves to ancient limits!
The following day, my right hon. Friend the Lord President announced the debate on this order, for which I have campaigned for so long. The day after, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Minister for Roads and Traffic, announced that there would be signing on the M27 to the Isle of Wight—the completion of a nearly seven-year campaign. So, all in all, the Isle of Wight's birthdays have almost all come on the same day.
It is a privilege, given to few in the House, to be afforded the opportunity to move history an inch. It is probably rarer still that an hon. Member may have the opportunity to legislate for his or her constituency in total isolation from the rest of Her Majesty's kingdom. Tonight, a possibly unique and historic occasion is taking place, when just one hon. Member has that opportunity on behalf of an entire county and two districts or, in the Isle of Wight's case, the two borough councils of South Wight and Medina, which, coincidentally, comprise in their entirety a parliamentary seat.
So here we stand on the threshold of the most major and radical reorganisation of local government that the island has seen in contemporary history: a single authority for the delivery of all the services throughout the island. We could debate the warts and glitches in the enabling legislation and the fact that we have an inheritor authority, as has already been mentioned, and not a fresh start as was envisaged by the local government commission. We could debate the lack of a true shadow authority and the peculiar election cycle and adjustments that the parish and town councils will have to make in due course to their own election cycle. We could debate the fact that, of the four times that I have


lost my temper since becoming an hon. Member, two of them were over this order, and were directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I should like to apologise to him and thank him for his great kindness and understanding of my frustration. We could debate the merits and demerits of the unification of the planning process and its application and possible precedent, like the inheritor arguments, for those who may yet follow the island's example towards the unitary goal.
But, tonight, I do not intend to follow those points, for some of them, as has already been mentioned, require primary legislation. I had to exercise my judgment as to whether I could and should hold out for further changes and embellishments, or accept that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In my opinion, the proposals for a change in local government in the shire counties probably no longer command a majority in the House, and certainly do not warrant further delay.
Did I therefore gamble the art of the possible on all the vagaries of the legislative wheel of fortune, whose uncertainties are all too well known to hon. Members? It is true that I upped the ante, as they say; but then, if I had not, would we ever have got this far? I doubt it.
It is not often that a Back Bencher has the opportunity to pray in aid the opinion of a leading counsel; but South Wight borough council, which was particularly concerned about this point, sought the opinion of Mr. Jeremy Sullivan QC. In his concluding remarks, he stated:
I would have thought that litigation which prolonged uncertainty as to the future of local government structure for the Island would not be desirable from the Council's point of view.
I took that view in regard to further legislation. I know that that counsel's opinion has been sent to Opposition Members.
As so often happens in the House, the devil is in the detail. The detailed requirements of these changes nearly unhinged the consensus that had been built up on the island in favour of this reform. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning has promised me in private to give an undertaking that, when the reorganisation for the whole country is complete, he will review the electoral cycles of the new unitary authorities vis-a-vis the existing and/or remaining authorities to see whether any alignment would be welcome; I hope that he will put that on the record tonight, as well as the arrangements for aligning the parish and town council elections on the island, which do not appear in the order.
There remains the concern that I have already expressed on the Floor of the House about the combination of the three standard spending assessments and their effect on the island's future spending pattern. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is minded of that.
Having spent nearly nine years working towards the success of this change, both inside and outside the House, I have never lost sight of the fact that, while the loudest noise comes from the councillors, those most affected are the men and women for whom local government service is both a career and a livelihood. I would fail in my duty to those who have given such excellent service to the island if I did not tell the Minister that there remains a substantial reservoir of mistrust among staff at all levels that the staff commission does not seem to have fully hoisted on board their concern that we are to have an inheritor authority.
Only last weekend, another staff deputation came to see me and expressed continuing concern about the fact that although the county council gives the appearance of consultation, it also gives the impression that everything has been fixed in advance. Feelings are running high on this aspect of the reform. I accept that the masterly inactivity occasioned by the delay in the order has not helped, and that once the process is embarked on some of the fears will evaporate; I must put it on record, however, that if the employees' misgivings turn out to have some foundation, it is to the staff commission and only the staff commission that they can appeal. The Minister must ensure that the commission has the teeth to give effect to the need for transparent and fair decisions, especially in regard to borough council staff.
The other matter that I wish to raise concerns unfinished business. The commission did not deliberate on the question of the island's boundaries in relation to the Solent, but drew attention to our concerns. The Select Committee on the Environment, of which I am a member, has touched on the subject again in recent weeks. Judging by the interest that that has caused, I feel certain that every hon. Member with a coastal constituency considers that the problem must be addressed sooner rather than later.
Some on the island have eased the process; others have opposed it. I have no wish to mention any of them tonight, however. We have an island saying: "No one mentioned, no one forgotten." So, to councillors and officers who have helped the process I say thank you; as for those who have opposed it, my most fervent hope and prayer is that their misgivings will be proved to have been unfounded. As I have said on many occasions, I have carried a far heavier burden in obtaining these reforms than may be realised. I am very conscious that the last thing that those of us who value local government want—after all the dust has settled and all the changes have been made—is for the man on the Southern Vectis omnibus to go around saying, "Who on earth thought this one up?" After all, the purpose of the reform is to make local government more user friendly, more efficient and—dare I say it—more comprehensible to the good citizens of the Isle of Wight, who are paying for it.
I will let the House into a secret: I have a horror of having any road or building named after me. I believe in the words, "If you wish to see my monument, look around you." To have delivered this reform to my own constituency in under seven years in the House is a piece of remarkable good fortune—but, like so many of my constituents who are lucky enough to live on the Isle of Wight, I sometimes do not want to share the island and my good fortune with anyone else.
Although I am mindful that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the President of the Board of Trade, who put the legislation through the House, I hope that he will accept that he will not find a coded message in my likening myself to Frodo Baggins in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". He had to destroy the one ring that his Uncle Bilbo had obtained, against all the odds, to keep it from Sauron the Dark Lord so that he could not use it for his evil purposes.
I have been pleased to hold the ring for the Isle of Wight's reform, but the Dark Lord that I see in the national picture of these reforms of local government is a bill that the nation can ill afford, and a reform that exactly fits the rule of Hapsburg politics so eloquently articulated by Count Taaffe: 

Beyond the achievement of a level of supportable dissatisfaction on all sides, I have no political ambitions.
My constituents, and the nation, will have to wait for my memoirs to learn of the effort that went into securing this order and the consensus on the island that lubricated its path. It has not been easy, but then anything worth while in this life rarely is.
I understand that the other place has provisionally set aside 28 April for debate on the order, subject to what happens here tonight. I hope that the order will be approved in this House without a vote: that is what the island would wish, and I believe that it would clearly reflect the island's views.
As I said at the beginning of this short debate, I am conscious of a sense of history in the making tonight. 11 feel that I can only close by paraphrasing the time-honoured words used to launch every ship that has served the island since time began. Accordingly, I wish this order and the new Isle of Wight council Godspeed: may all who serve in it, whether as employees or as councillors, find fulfilment, and may all its deliberations and decisions be to our island's advantage.

Mr. David Rendel: I was waiting for the bottle of champagne to be broken over somebody's head, but I am glad to see that that does not happen in the Chamber.
I was interested by the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), in which he spoke of opposition and the Isle of Wight in one breath. Iterestingly, on the island, the opposition are the Conservatives and the administration is the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure where the Labour party stands —I suspect virtually nowhere.
The Government have shown uncharacteristic generosity in introducing the order before any other. If there is any cherry picking on the Isle of Wight, the cherry certainly is very orange.I say "uncharacteristic" because if the order is passed, as I hope it will be, considerable power will be put in the hands of the new Liberal Democrat administration, which won an increased majority last May. That is very welcome.
Almost everybody agrees that the order should be passed. I understand that all three parties represented here and people on the island agree, so I very much hope that the order will be passed, but there is a difficulty in the way in which it has been handled, which has been mentioned and to which I should like to refer briefly.
An inheritor authority—a continuing authority—will take over straight away. The difficulty is the possibility of some unfairness to the staff of the two councils that will be abolished, compared with staff in the other council, and to a certain extent, although this is probably less important, to the councillors concerned.
More important than either of those possibilities is the lack of democracy. It is clear that some electors will choose different candidates—perhaps even different parties—for different jobs in government. One obvious example is the Isle of Wight, where the electorate, for reasons best known to themselves, chose a Conservative Member of Parliament but a Liberal Democrat administration for their county council. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that the electorate would wish the same people on the successor authority as on the county council. It is unfortunate that they should be unable to make that further choice. I hope

that the Minister will address the lack of democracy and will assure us that this situation will never arise again in any other reorganisation.

Mr. Barry Field: Would the hon. Gentleman put himself in my shoes for a moment? Would he have continued to try to force the Government's hand and have occasioned a delay in the introduction of the order of a year, or perhaps two years, or would he have taken the view that uncertainty is the bedevilment of good management in local government and have taken the opportunity afforded now to get on with it?

Mr. Rendel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention as it gives me the chance to say that I agree that any further delay would be unfortunate. It is in the best interests of staff that they should know where they stand and I would not have tried to delay the order in the way that he suggests. In that sense, he has acted in the right manner, but it leaves us, nevertheless, with the difficulty that, unless we receive an assurance from the Minister, further reorganisations may get into exactly the same trouble as we have got into here. I hope, therefore, that we shall receive an assurance from the Minister later.
I have a personal interest in this matter not only as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats on local government, but as the Member representing the area covered by Newbury district council, which may retain exactly the same boundaries when it becomes an unitary authority if an order is proposed later this year. I do not want an unitary authority in my area to be simply a continuing authority, as is proposed for the Isle of Wight.
It seems that the situation arose originally from a simple drafting error in the legislation—or that is what we are led to believe, but perhaps the Minister will comment on that, too. There is every sign that the Government, in promising a completely fresh start, originally thought that a completely new authority would be set up in advance of any powers being transferred. Clearly, all three authorities on the Isle of Wight originally believed that that would be so and welcomed it.
It is clear that the Association of District Councils and Association of County Councils believe that a new authority should be in place before any transfer of powers and are sorry that that will not apply in the Isle of Wight. The question for the Minister, therefore, is: are we setting a precedent today that will be followed on another occasion, or will the law in effect be changed to ensure that the precedent does not apply in future?
Despite what I have said about that difficulty, I believe that the order should be passed because my criterion for whether reorganisation should take place is somewhat different from the five criteria given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North. My criterion is simple: is there a clear majority in favour of the reorganisation proposed among the people of the area concerned? On the Isle of Wight, it seems that there is such a majority, so I welcome the order and hope that the House will approve it today.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am quite neutral about the wording of the order. I have never visited the Isle of Wight, so I have little knowledge of it. If MORI polls and polls conducted by local government commissioners show strong support for a unitary authority


in the area, I shall support the order. The problem is the implications of the order and the procedure being followed to introduce it.
The Boundary Commission for England is reviewing local government in England. Counties are at different stages of their analysis, but we should be conducting an overall investigation of local government boundaries and functions, after which we should discuss primary legislation to enact those proposals, rather than debating an order that might be used as a precedent for other areas.
Unitary authorities have served local government well in some areas, especially where there has been strong local support for them, but I see no grounds for saying that they should be the general pattern or that they should be stablished by order. I am conscious of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this debate is not on the local government review. Therefore, my concerns about Derbyshire may not be held to be entirely relevant, but, because of my concern about Derbyshire and similar areas, I am concerned about the procedure that we are pursuing tonight and the implications of it.
I do not necessarily agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said; he was more sympathetic to the establishment of unitary authorities, albeit within a regional structure, than I am. Some functions of county areas may have to be rationalised, and in some areas unitary authorities should be established. In the county of Derbyshire, there seems a reasonable case for Derby itself being a unitary authority. A MORI poll conducted there showed that it was the one part of the county that was in favour of that arrangement. However, the people in the rest of the county strongly favour the status quo and see no need for any adjustment to the basic boundaries between the district and county authorities. That view needs to be taken into account.
If the argument in favour of this proposal rests on the views of the people of the Isle of Wight, what happens elsewhere in the country and the attitude taken by the House should also be dependent on the views of people in a particular area.
Although the arguments might be strong in favour of the order, I am fearful of the procedures that we use to introduce it and of its implications, whether or not there is cherry picking and whether or not this is only the first stage of the new structure for local government. It is on those grounds that, unless I can be convinced otherwise, I am disposed to seek to divide the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was not able to be here earlier for the very good reason that I have been engaged in trying to help save Tower colliery, the last pit in south Wales. I hope that the Minister will understand. I shall probably still be here making telephone calls to that end, after all other hon. Members have gone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) knows, I had intended to be here, but there have been some new developments with a view to another mass meeting of NUM members at the colliery in the morning.
I have taken a keen interest in the local government review, and not only in the present one of which the Isle of Wight order is the first segment. It has disturbed me from

the very beginning that, unlike the Local Government Act 1972, when issues and areas were debated as the Bill, as it was, passed through its parliamentary stages, this order is probably only one of many which are to come in the next few months or the next year.
Many of us are worried about the system that is being used to introduce the order. It is pretty clear what the Government are up to, whether one describes it as Machiavellian or in some other way. In 1972, we were able to debate the proposals in principle. Now—to use a phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East—we have cherry picking, whereby the Government and their Back Benchers can say that what is proposed does not matter much to them so they will proceed.
According to what I have read, most of the people of the Isle of Wight are happy with the new proposal, which may or may not be true. However, a constituency can be happy about something but the national scene may be quite different. What disturbs me is the fact that, if we allow the order to go through on the nod, we leave it open for the Minister to be able to say in future that hon. Members were not against the issue in principle because we allowed the Isle of Wight order to go through without a Division.
That causes a problem for people such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East because our county is in line for the same treatment. We also worry about Cleveland because, presumably, the Cleveland order could be next. The Government and others might say to Cleveland that, as the Isle of Wight order went through on 18 April with hardly any opposition, every Member of Parliament accepted the system in principle. I am against the system that is being used because I can see what might happen.
Some of the counties and areas that have traditionally been hostile to the Tory Government for many years—for example, Cleveland, Durham and Derbyshire—may well be regarded as prizes to be dealt with in similar orders. The Government will say that they are using the same procedure that they used for the Isle of Wight order and the subsequent orders will be passed while most of us in Derbyshire believe in retaining the status quo. It may not be satisfactory for people in the Isle of Wight, but that is the conclusion of the majority of people in our part of the world. I think that the same is true of many other areas, too.
Some of us are astonished by the amount of money—probably £1 billion in the whole of England and Wales, including the Isle of Wight—being spent on the reorganisation of local government. Many of us believe that if such a large amount of taxpayers' money is available, it should be used to build houses and improve amenities in our towns and cities.
The Isle of Wight is minuscule in relation to the country as a whole, although I accept that it is important to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the people who live there. However, it could be symbolic because the Isle of Wight order might set a precedent. I should therefore like the Minister to tell us whether he regards this order as a precedent for others. Will all the rest be dealt with enbloc? He shakes his head, so we know what the answer will be.
I predict a scenario in which the future of a few authorities such as Cleveland, Derbyshire and Durham could be subject to the vote of Tory Members of Parliament and perhaps others who will vote for similar orders, even in counties where we know that Tories are up


in arms against the proposal. I was in Somerset a couple of months ago to address about 500 people, almost all of whom were opposed to it. There was tremendous opposition from all parties.
I can envisage a situation in which several orders are introduced, but Tory Members of Parliament will say that they have had enough and are going to pack it up. The Government then have a reshuffle and the Secretary of State for the Environment is moved on, and the same happens to the Minister for Local Government and Planning. If they are moved to other Departments, what they have said will not longer matter. The Minister smiles, but that is what happens and that is what is likely to happen. The net result is that the Government will say
that they have a new brush and wish to make a clean sweep. It would mean that what we fought for in Derbyshire and some of the traditional Labour territories could be changed at a stroke.
Although we are not allowed to talk specifically about Derbyshire, the Government are insisting on continual revisions. I do not know whether this happened on the Isle of Wight, but the local government commissioners are repeatedly sent back until they get the results that the Government want. The Government are shifting the goal posts whenever the people of Derbyshire speak. The Minister has already said that he is not prepared to propose all the changes en bloc so that some Tory Members could vote with us against massive changes in some parts of Britain. The Government's agenda is clear: the Isle of Wight tonight, the rest later.
I do not know my party's position in this instance, but, as we are all concerned about the massive amount of taxpayers' money to be spent on this wholly unnecessary reorganisation, we have no alternative but to oppose the order on principle because it will be the start of many more orders. I do not want the Government to be able to say that nobody voted against the first. Once we have accepted in principle the idea of orders late at night, we shall not have a case to answer.

Mr. Barry Field: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has done me a great favour in describing me as "minuscule". I do not think that I have ever before been thus described, but I take it as an honour to be described by the hon. Gentleman, who is a great parliamentarian. I shall try to clarify the precise position. The hon. Gentleman says that he will vote against the principle, but not against the order as it affects the Isle of Wight. Do I have him right?

Mr. Skinner: No. I am saying that the local government reorganisation in 1972 was brought before the House in the form of a Bill. We had Second Reading and Committee debates. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who had grievances were able to play one off against the other, and the result was that certain changes were made. On this occasion, the Government have operated differently, knowing that they are dealing with massive changes which will alienate many Tories in certain parts of Britain—although not, perhaps in the Isle of Wight. As a result, the Government are introducing the changes order by order. I have a feeling that the hidden agenda is for the order to go through—no one will get too excited about that—and then to start on the traditional Labour areas.
I am not privy to what people on the Isle of Wight have said. From what I have read, I assume that most people are satisfied with the new arrangements. However, if I accepted the order, in future, when fighting for some of the other areas nearer and dearer to my heart, I could be accused at Question Time and on other occasions. Ministers might say, "You did not fight it on principle, Skinner. You let it go through." On those grounds, I believe that we have no alternative. The Minister has made it clear that he will introduce orders in a cherry-picking fashion.

Mr. Curry: It is not my job to speak for the business managers. I am sure that if the Opposition made an approach about the manner in which the orders could be taken, the business managers would be more than receptive. However, the fact remains that the Commission makes recommendations in a certain sequence and we have to lay them in front of the House. I should have thought that those who have talked about gerrymandering or about the democratic system would have believed that on the whole, giving the House the opportunity to vote on the organising proposals as they arrive would be the best guarantee of democracy. As I said, I am not one of the business managers. If the Opposition have a better idea, I have no doubt that we shall listen to it.
What lies behind the argument is that the process is what has been described as cherry-picking. I make it clear that we are proceeding with the reorganisation. There is no thought in my mind that there would come a point at which we would say, "That is it, chaps. It is all getting too difficult." It is, of course, true that the parties are divided. Conservatives are divided against Conservatives, Labour is divided against Labour and Liberal Democrat is divided against Liberal Democrat. Provided that the debate is about the correct, sensible and most responsible form of local government, it is a good debate and there is no reason why it should not take place. We do not want it to become a debate on the basis of mistaken information or of misleading propaganda, or for it to become a Hobbesian battle for survival when people forget that the issue is delivering services. I have no problem with there being argument, however inconvenient that is, because we all share the inconvenience.

Mr. Barnes: But it will not be a full-fledged debate in the House. There will be statutory instruments—bits and pieces—and a bit of a debate. There are only a handful of us here tonight. If we had a Bill similar to the Bill that brought about the changes in 1974, we would have massive discussions, a proper Committee stage, serious considera-tion and the possibility of amendment. Instead, we have a statutory instrument—a matter of "take it or leave it". Unfortunately, some of us will have to leave it.

Mr. Curry: I am delighted to know that the Labour party has been so profoundly content with the procedures adopted for the reorganisation of local government in Wales and in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, there has been a Bill for each of those reorganisations. The decision in England was to set up an independent commission. The commission is independent because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I consult him about appointments to maintain the


balance in the commission; that is thought to be the best way forward. In any case, that is now water under the bridge.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North asked me about five conditions; I shall respond as precisely as possible. As I told him, we are not in the business of cherry-picking. We intend to pursue a universal review. He also talked about gerrymandering. As he knows, the commission has to make recommendations and then has to confirm or change its recommendations. The recommenda-tions come to the Government who have to judge them in the light of criteria that are set out clearly in statute. We then have to invite the House of Commons to act on the recommendations.
Leaving aside the commission's consultations, I point out that we consult very widely. I have had as many delegations of Opposition Members come to talk to me about proposals as I have had from other interested parties. We are not in the business of trying to rig the change. That would be foolhardy and extremely difficult to pull off. I must make it clear that that is not part of the game.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for not having listened to the whole debate. Do I understand it that once the commission has made its recommendations for my county of Devon and the west country, the Government will then decide whether they will go along with them? When the proposal comes to the Floor of the House, what will happen on each order that affects Devon? Will there be a debate such as this one for Devon and will there be a Division, or will a statutory instrument be discussed in Committee, in which case there will be no opportunity for a real debate?

Mr. Curry: I do not claim to have any particular expertise in procedure, so if I am wrong, I shall correct my remarks. My understanding is that each order will come to the Floor of the House for debate and that each order will have a separate vote attached to it so that hon. Members on both sides will have an opportunity to express themselves on each proposal.
In general terms—I use the words "in general terms" because we consult people about what they want—we intend that shadow elections will take place a year before the new council comes into operation. The people who have been elected to the shadow council, which prepares for the new council, will be the people who assume the full responsibility. In other words, our expectation is that people will usually vote for a new council to reorganise and then to implement the new proposals.

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry that I was not able to catch the Minister's attention a second before he moved on to shadow authorities. Cherry-picking is the issue which concerns many hon. Members. Can the Minister suggest to the House a commitment that would be binding on the Government which would give hon. Members confidence that the Government were not going to change direction somewhere along the line? Can the Minister raise confidence by saying that when orders come before the House in future, he will say what the Government want to happen with the complete review? Can he give an assurance that there will not be back-tracking at some point

down the line? Can he give a minimum assurance that he would demit his office if there were any abandonment of the review?

Mr. Curry: The only assurance that I can give is that it is not the Government's intention to abandon the review. Frankly, if we had intended to bail out of the review, the time to do so would have been about a year ago; it would not be now. The review is on course, the commission is on schedule and the timetable is being adhered to. Of course, the fact that a number of councils have chosen to go to judicial review has meant that the short-term timetable has had to be amended. However, what matters ultimately is our intention that in May 1997, the last of the new authorities will assume their full responsibilities. We are still on target to reach that date.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North will appreciate, I cannot speculate about what may happen in future reviews, because the commission still has the competence. It is not for me to speculate on what the commission may produce. As we do the reviews, I am perfectly willing, if any general threads or patterns emerge, to discuss what we might be learning. That is as much as it would be right for me to do constitutionally.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North made a point about one third being elected at a time. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer he seeks because under legislation, it is and will be up to councils to tell the Government the basis on which they wish to organise their elections. I would have to have very strong reasons to say no to a proposal.
Currently, it is up to a council that elects by an all-out system, to come and ask whether it can move to a system of election by thirds. Of course, councils must start with the big bang, as it were, because there is no other way in which to start the process. However, if councils then prefer to have elections by thirds, they have the ability to ask for that and I cannot think of reasons for which we would wish to deny that request. That is all that I can do under the legislation.
I note the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North makes about the staff commission and its recommendations. We are about to consult widely on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) mentioned those points and I noted them carefully. The staff arrangements made under the order will have to be the subject of legislation.
My hon. Friend asked me about a commitment that I gave to him and I am happy to repeat it. I told him that the Isle of Wight unitary council was technically the continuation of the county council. Therefore, it will follow that electoral cycle. The next set of elections will be in 1998 to allow the new councillors a reasonable period of office. After the transitional arrangements, the unitary authorities will return to the county council electoral cycle. However, once a structural review of shire England has been completed, and we have a clear view of the future structure of local government, we intend to review local authority electoral cycles and to consider whether and how the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 may be amended. The possibility of considering the whole question of electoral cycles may be the point which my hon. Friend wishes to discuss.
Our review will also cover the need to align unitary authorities and parish elections in the way that is recommended for the island by the commission. We accept


that recommendation and agree that it would be expensive and wasteful to have parish elections in different years on the island. I think that that meets entirely my hon. Friend's point. I have covered the point about staffing. That will be an area on which, in future reviews when we have gained some experience, we shall be able to have a slightly fuller discussion. On the question of the extension of the coast, my hon. Friend will be aware of the especial constitutional position. I am perfectly willing to write to him in detail on the constitutional points which may be helpful as they are not germane to today's argument.
Points were made by two hon. Members who represent Derbyshire constituencies. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked whether, if we let the order go without opposing it, it would be taken as a precedent and people would say that he did not oppose the principle. I would argue the other way. If the hon. Gentleman votes against a measure such as this order, which, it is commonly understood, has a broad measure of support and is broadly supported on the island, surely he would be establishing precisely the opposite principle that, come what may, he would vote against the orders. His Front-Bench spokesmen are in favour of the local government review, but the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the whole thing was a waste.
The fact remains that there is a broad consensus in the House that we should test the efficiency of local government against the possibility of the new structure being more efficient. There is no magical or secret blueprint. We do not have our mind set on the outcome. Being the first order, it is widely supported and it gets us a run on the board, if I may use a metaphor which is popular in certain areas of my party. I think that it will be widely welcomed on the Isle of Wight. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's activities and commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 10.

Division No. 212]
[7.52


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold





Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Nelson, Anthony


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Page, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paice, James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Pickles, Eric


Fishburn, Dudley
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rathbone, Tim


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Rendel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Richards, Rod


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


French, Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gallie, Phil
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gillan, Cheryl
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spencer, Sir Derek


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hague, William
Sproat, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stephen, Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Stern, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Streeter, Gary


Hendry, Charles
Sweeney, Walter


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sykes, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hunter, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Jack, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jenkin, Bernard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jessel, Toby
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Jones, Gwilyrn (Cardiff N)
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Tredinnick, David


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Trend, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Legg, Barry
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lightbown, David
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Malone, Gerald
Willetts, David


Mans, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wood, Timothy


Merchant, Piers



Mills, Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Moate, Sir Roger
Mr. Derek Conway.




NOES


Bayley, Hugh
Mahon, Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Spearing, Nigel


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Wise, Audrey


Dafis, Cynog



Gordon, Mildred
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Madden, Max
Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Isle of Wight (Structural Change) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Somalia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: Before the House adjourns, I should like it to give some consideration to the subject of Somalia. On a day on which the world's attention is once again on Bosnia, it is impossible to give Somalia the attention that I should like it to receive.
I propose to talk about recent visits made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) and myself to Somaliland. I express my appreciation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration for the support that they gave both before and afterwards. The circumstances were really quite difficult at times. I want also to express my appreciation to Action Aid, which sponsored the visit to Somaliland and whose work we should have liked to see more of but could not. All the signs are that its work is successful. It includes extremely valuable work both in water and in veterinary projects. I was pleased when the ODA recently increased its contribution to Action Aid for that work.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I echo the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to Action Aid for everything that they did for us during a difficult time.

Mr. Worthington: I shall talk about Somaliland to some extent, but I shall also broaden my remarks to encompass the whole subject of Somalia. There is no doubt that Somaliland is more stable than many parts of Somalia. Despite the experiences that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I had, there is no doubt that there are some encouraging activities taking place in Somaliland. I draw attention to two in particular. One was a conference at Boroya, which lasted for five months. The clan elders—the traditional leaders of the area—came together and hammered out a constitution and a plan of campaign for the territory. The second encouraging event was one at which the hon. Gentleman and I were present: I refer to the giving up by the people of Somaliland of their heavy weaponry. We went to the national stadium to see the handing-over of the heavy weapons by the fourth brigade of Hargeisa. Things are being accomplished by the people of Somalia without the help of the United Nations. Activities are being undertaken in the cause of peace and development by the people themselves, and that must be encouraged.
I gather that this debate can continue until 10.30 pm —it is certainly not my intention to speak for two and half hours, and I see the Minister wince at the idea. We want to know from the Government just what they regard as British responsibility. What do they consider to be the British link? When we ask questions of the Government about areas of concern in Africa, they understandably express nervousness and say that they do not want to be deeply involved in every trouble spot. I can understand that approach, but that does not mean that I support it. When I table questions about Rwanda or Burundi, for example, Ministers say that the Government are not taking a lead in those countries. Those are not parts of Africa with which

we have been traditionally associated; I can understand the expectation that in those countries the Belgians should take a lead.
The concomitant of that, however, is that in those parts of Africa where we have traditionally been involved, we should be giving a lead. There is no doubt that in Somaliland, the former area of British Somalia, we are the donor country, the northern country, the developed country, the country that is seen as having unparalleled knowledge and experience of and a shared history with Somalia. I should like to know whether the Government accept that link. Do they see some special duty falling on Britain to give a lead in Europe and in the United Nations in respect of Somalia and other countries? Obviously Sudan and perhaps, Sierra Leone, come to mind. Those countries were part of the empire and their peoples expect us to be involved.
I raise that point because, in the economic sphere, it is accepted that Britain has a special interest. It is accepted that, in a discussion with those at the World bank or the International Monetary Fund of the affairs of African countries with which we have been associated, it is expected that the British director of the bank will speak first; he will have a particular interest and locus in that area. If we were talking about francophone Africa, the French director would speak.
Does the Minister believe that there is a special responsibility or special relationship—if I dare use that expression—between this country and some parts of Africa? What is our role? It is wishy-washy simply to say that the international community has a role. The international community does not exist in an enveloping way; it exists to he driven by some parts of that community. The international community is only as strong as the nations within it.
With regard to parts of our colonial inheritance, I should like to think that we accept at least a moral responsibility. I am not talking about money. I am not saying that huge amounts of extra money should go to the area—although the Minister will be aware that the Opposition believe that our aid budget is shamefully low. We are talking about commitment and political leadership.
Such leadership is desperately required. If one visits Somalia or Somaliland, it is clear that the United Nations is floundering. We visited Hargeisa, which is the chief town of Somaliland. At the United Nations Operation in Somalia office in Hargeisa, we were deeply dispirited by the coherence of the UN effort. When we asked the UN representatives—the UNOSOM task force—what they were doing, they said, "We are here to support." It is very difficult to support without resources. It is difficult to have credibility in relation to support if one has nothing to give. The people in the Hargeisa office of UNOSOM say that they are there to support. They say that they send messages to Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, but that they disappear into a black hole and no response is received. It is very difficult to see how stability can continue if the world community does not provide real support and resources for Somaliland. There is an utter lack of purpose there. The staff have no idea what they are supposed to be doing.
These matters are heavily bound up with a thorny and difficult issue: three years ago, the people of Somaliland declared themselves to be the independent republic of Somaliland, but no one has recognised Somaliland. That is easy to understand: it seems to be an article of faith of the


Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League, for their own reasons, not to recognise the break-up of other states because they fear a domino effect in their countries. Because no one has recognised Somaliland, we are paralysed in terms of how to react to it.
We experienced the same paralysis in relation to Somalia in the first place. Hon. Members may recall the questions asked about the situation in Somalia in 1991 and 1992. We were told—and we knew—that there could be no reaction to Somalia because there was no Government there. The UN, the European Union and the other international bodies can operate only when there is a sovereign Government in that country. Paradoxically, when there is nothing but chaos and when there is the most need, the international community can do nothing because its charters prevent a response. We were in that mess in 1992 with regard to Somalia as a whole and we are in that mess now with regard to Somaliland, because no one recognises Somaliland.
There is a form of Government and order there to which we are unable to respond. We can send humanitarian aid into the country or region or whatever one wants to call it. We can set up water and veterinary projects. But when it comes to meeting the country's major infrastructural requirements to prop it up and stop it retreating into disorder, we are unable to respond.
Last autumn, a UN official in Somaliland—Mr. McAteer, who has since understandably disappeared from the scene—said that it was time to dismantle the nonsense of Somaliland. He was obviously chased out of Somaliland by the people of the area. I am not arguing for the recognition of Somaliland. Far too many Europeans have been telling Africans what their borders should be. That is not for us to do. But if a bit of a country is behaving in the right way, is having peace conferences and is disarming itself, it is important to pile in behind that bit of a country and assist it. One should not become paralysed in that situation, but that is the current position in Somaliland. The paralysis of Mogadishu has become rigor mortis by the time it reaches Hargeisa; nothing happens there.
I believe that the budget must be devolved from Mogadishu to Hargeisa so that the people on the spot can work with the authority in Hargeisa. That could lead to many kinds of development. During our truncated visit to the country, before we spent time on a Somali hill side, we saw a port where animals had to be taken out on the small dhows that were moored in the bay. At some stage in the past, the piers, jetties and lifting gear had been destroyed or had fallen into decay.
That port does not require an Overseas Development Administration project. It needs serious money to help the people of Somaliland to re-establish their traditional trade in livestock to the Yemen or to Saudi Arabia. At the moment, we are paralysed. What is the Government's response to UNOSOM's paralysis in that regard?
For the benefit of those who are not fully aware of the situation, let me explain that UNOSOM has overwhel-mingly been a military operation. In 1993, about $615 million was spent on UNOSOM. Some 85 per cent. of that was military spending. None of it was spent in Somaliland: there are no troops there because there has never been a need for troops there.
The UN must also begin to call its separate organisations to account. Those organisations sometimes work well, but sometimes they fail to deliver. We cannot just let them go their own way. In Djibouti we went to see

the person who ran the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees operation for Somalia and Somaliland. As it happened, the person in Djibouti showed us the programme of what was occurring. A lot was occurring and much of it seemed to be worth while. However, what was striking was that the people virtually said openly that we must understand that they do not get tangled up with UNOSOM in any way at all. They preserve their freedom and they guard and defend their turf.
At least they were doing something. What was the World Health Organisation doing in Somaliland? All we got was the information that it was delivering some drugs. Since I came back, I have asked the Foreign Office some parliamentary questions. Apparently, the World Health Organisation in Somaliland has developed, with non-governmental organisations, a detailed plan for the problems of Somaliland. It would be more convincing if the NGOs in Somaliland knew that that is what WHO said. When we met representatives of the NGOs, I thought that they would say that they had been working with WHO. However, they said that the trouble with WHO is that it is elsewhere. The WHO is spending its time in Kenya; Kenya is a more comfortable place than Somaliland.
What was the Food and Agricultural Organisation doing there? I do not know what it was doing, but we must get some sort of accountability. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how he, as a representative of the Government, keeps tabs on what is happening in areas where relief operations are supposed to be taking place.
I cannot convey strongly enough the extent of the deprivation in places such as Somalia and Somaliland. We are talking about countries without the fundamental apparatus of a state; we are talking about countries without income, revenue, a taxation system and a civil service; and we are talking about countries that have no power system, no communications system and no reliable water supplies.
There is also a total lack of education and health systems; at present, there is a great threat of cholera throughout Somalia. The response must come from the NGOs. A generation of Somalis have not been educated. That can be rectified only if the international community responds in a more sensible way. The Government must tell the House why Britain is not the key player in that response. Who else will provide the motivation in terms of Somalia if it is not Britain? Who is more qualified? I hope that the Minister will address that issue.
As I said, we are talking not about recognition but about support. It is a question of encouraging those who are doing the right thing. If one does not do that, there are two potential sets of beneficiaries. The first comprises the gunmen—we ran into five of them——who will take over again. Another thing that is happening in Somalia at present is the first substantial stirring of fundamentalism. If this country does not like fundamentalism, it must prove that it is a trustworthy supporter of those who are trying to work well in countries such as Somalia. That deals with Somaliland.
I shall now spend a little time talking about Somalia as a whole and the situation that we found there. I have extremely mixed feelings about what is happening in Somalia. Undoubtedly, there is the threat of a real problem arising there. I suspect that most people in the United Kingdom think that the troops have withdrawn because CNN said that the Americans are out. Of course, CNN showed the landing of a vast number of American troops in December 1992. The Americans became very chastened


by their experience. One needs knowledge, appreciation and subtlety in dealing with a country such as Somalia. The troops have not withdrawn; there are 20,000 troops from 25 countries still in Somalia. What are they doing there? I am not quarrelling with the fact that they are there. But if United Nations troops are there, there should be clarity about their purpose.
Some 25 nations are represented in Somalia in the 20,000 strong task force. The task force is dominated by western troops—the Americans and others have by and large withdrawn. There are 12,000 troops from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. If I simply mention those three countries together, it is a little tricky to imagine great harmony of command and unity of purpose. Another 22 nations are part of the task force.
Today, we have been wincing about the forces in Bosnia and the difficulties that arise when those over whom one is trying to keep peace start turning on one. What are the troops doing? What is their mandate? Some of them are said to have done extremely good work—I have heard praise for the Botswana troops in Somalia, for example. I suspect that some countries will say that it is a good training exercise; some will say that it is a good place to get hard currency; and some will say that it is a good place to get their troops paid for.
If the clans start to turn on the troops, what is their mandate? Are they able to shoot if there is no way out? I suspect that the troops will spend a great deal of their time in compounds. They will be there in a peacekeeping role, but they will not be out on the streets because the streets are fairly dangerous.

Mr. Peter Hain: And Rwanda.

Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend mentions Rwanda. In Rwanda, there were 2,500 UNIMIR troops. When things started to turn nasty, they had to be withdrawn. At this stage, we should be thinking about the role of the troops.
What we need now, above all, is to be clear about the purpose of the United Nations operation. Part of it may be military, but of a lot of it is not; it is about getting good political leadership in Somalia. The catastrophe of the Somalia operation had the most profound consequences for the Americans. The Somalia exercise heavily conditioned the American response to Bosnia and the response of America and other countries to the situation in Sudan, Liberia and so on.
We need to start thinking about the troops and what they are doing. We need to ensure that they are getting good political leadership because there seems to be a vacuum. For some time, the leadership of UNOSOM was identified with Admiral Jonathan Howe of the United States navy, but he has gone now. Who has replaced him? Who is looking after Somalia now?
There are some encouraging signs. I know that Oxfam would want me to praise the Hirab peace initiatives which have brought about agreement between the Abgal clan and the Haba Gadir clan in the southern part of Somalia, and to praise the work being done by the Iman of the Hirab.
Those are the good things that are going on, but there are other, very worrying, things. Aid agencies talk about how difficult and unpredictable the streets of Mogadishu are now, and the International Committee of the Red Cross —of all organisations—has moved its expatriates out of

Somalia. The World Food Programme had to shut down the expatriate component of its offices within Kismayu because they were being attacked by Somali fighters.
It is not uncommon to be kidnapped now in Somalia —if I dare to mention it. In the first few months of the year, there were six kidnapping incidents. Aid agencies are seriously considering their positions because a worrying situation still exists there. Even where good things are occurring—for instance, a week or so back there was said to have been an agreement between the Aidid faction and the Ali Mandi factions in Nairobi to bring about peace in Somalia—they do not seem to be followed through. There seems to have been cynicism about that agreement, and it was thought that it followed a UN threat to stop paying the Somali delegates' expenses in Nairobi. The UN said it would not keep paying them to stay in Nairobi hotels unless they came to an agreement.
As far as I know, a meeting that was supposed to have occurred last Friday in Mogadishu to take through the peace agreement between the Ali Mandi supporters and the Aidid supporters has not occurred. I am told that fighting occurred when the Aidid forces seized control of the town of Merca, south of Mogadishu. It is a volatile situation. There are reports of inter-clan fighting and the technicals are said to be back on the streets of Mogadishu. A political initiative is needed to take things further and to work with the people of the area in a much more subtle way than has occurred so far.
On paper, the UN Security Council resolution that we are now working to seems to be better than the previous one in terms of working in local centres of strength. However, it is one thing to say such things and quite another to deliver. I should like to see the UN report on the 5 June incident published. That incident began the escalation of the trouble and led to the hunting down of Aidid. Apparently, there is a 260-page report which is highly critical of the UN operation and which has not yet surfaced.
We must look at the human rights abuses that have been occurring in Somalia—both by the Somalis and by UN operators. I applaud the Canadian Government, who have been prosecuting UN peacekeepers who went too far and tortured or abused people in their care. Progress in Somalia is possible only if the UN peacekeepers have credibility. It was disastrous when Admiral Howe decided that he was against Aidid, because that in itself led to the deaths of hundreds of Somalis and there are now difficulties in overcoming that particular bitterness.
In conclusion, we have a great opportunity tonight to hear until 10.30 pm the policy of the Government on Somalia. It will not take until 10.30 pm, but it will give us an opportunity to explore the Government's thinking on the issues and to discover its commitment to further humanitarian aid. However, I do not think that fundamentally the issue is one of humanitarian aid; the debate is about political initiative. On my first visit to Somalia, I was disturbed by the Foreign Office's lack of knowledge about what was happening in the Mogadishu area. Diplomats were not paying visits to Mogadishu. The responsibility for Somalia still lies with the Nairobi high commission. I think that more visits are now paid and there are better contacts. However, it is inadequate that one diplomat in Nairobi has his Kenyan responsibility and also has an oversight for south Sudan and Somalia. That is an under-representation of Britain.


I am grateful to the Minister for listening, and I hope that I have given him some areas on which he can respond.

Mr. Alun Michael: On behalf of the all-party group on Somalia, and also the Somali community in Britain, may I express our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank (Mr. Worthington) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) for the interest that they have taken in the situation in Somaliland, and in Somalia.
News of their kidnapping and swift release led for the first time to coverage on television and radio about the difference between what was happening in the south of the former Somalia and what was happening in the north. I am sure that it was not a plot on their behalf to be captured and released so quickly, but it is true that the situation in the north was virtually invisible for a period. The period of danger which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman faced had a beneficial side-effect of, for the first time, concentrating the attention of the British and world press on the different situation in different parts of the country.
For the sake of shorthand, I intend to use the name "Somaliland" for the area that covers the former British Somaliland—the Republic of Somaliland—and "Somalia" for the former area of Italian influence. It is difficult to be precise in the circumstances, but I think that that is the easiest shorthand to use.
I intend to refer primarily to Somaliland, because that is where most of our Somali constituents around Britain come from. We have had an historic responsibility in that area, albeit one which was broken by the time it united with the south.
My hon. Friend was correct to talk of the initiative that has been shown by the people of Somaliland in trying to address their problems. The way in which they have sought to pull themselves up out of a situation of complete despair is remarkable. There have been extended discussions over months, rather than days and weeks, and without hotels, cash or help.
Efforts have been made by the Somalis towards disarmament initiatives, and the mayor of Hargeisa has attempted to establish a police force. There have been attempts to rebuild the infrastructure and to retrain, and these things constitute a modern human miracle—especially when the situation is compared with the south.
I pay tribute to Save the Children—and to other organisations such as Oxfam, to which my hon. Friend referred—which have been involved in the aid effort and the attempt to support the north. I should also like to refer to the positive response that we always received from the Under-Secretary and, on a personal basis, from the Minister. Baroness Chalker has travelled and seen the situation at first hand.
One of the examples of the sort of help that is being given, and which arose from a suggestion made on a cross-party basis from the all-party group was the sending of a chief superintendent from the Metropolitan police to assist with the attempt to reconstruct the police force.
That initiative was positive, not only in the advice that he gave and the information that he brought back, but in the fact that it was seen as a symbol of Britain's interest in the problem which they were trying to tackle. The Foreign Office, however, needs to go further and shrug off its fear

of becoming involved in Somaliland. It must accept that the people of that area, and the Somali community in this country, look for more from Britain.
President Egal recently referred to the difficulties of surviving as an Administration. He said:
We haven't got the resources and the international community is … turning its back on us. Our great danger is if we cannot promise, nor deliver on our promises to these people. That's our greatest danger.
The Administration—let us not call them a Government if that offends—who are running Somaliland cannot deliver, police or pursue the reconstruction, because it is difficult for any organisation that is not a Government to do so. The present system is in danger of breaking down and returning to the previous disaster.
I endorse the comment made by my hon. Friend, that the issue is not recognition of the state but recognition of the Administration and its efforts, which require support. At some point, the international community must recognise either an independent state in Somaliland or a reconstructed state in the Somalia area. I support my hon. Friend's view that the matter must be decided by the Somalis. The problem is that the international community provides neither a framework in which they can take that decision nor a mechanism by which the people of the north can choose to become independent, and nobody in the south has formed an Administration with whom agreement can be reached.
I recognise the difficulty for the British Government and the international community, but hope that the Minister will assure us that Britain will press the international community to decide how the Administration in the north can, at some point, achieve independence or recognition, and ensure that it is not left in limbo for a long time.
We have seen two cases in which a Government have disappeared—first, in former Yugoslavia; secondly, in Somalia. Those parts of the country that try to exercise responsibility are left in a catch-22 situation, because they cannot win recognition until they have taken steps that require the help of the international community, which comes only after recognition. I realise that that vicious circle is not of the Minister's making, but I hope that he agrees that the problem must be dealt with, as it is not of the making of the Somali people, either.
Martyn Lewis, the BBC broadcaster, recently commented about the need for good as well as bad news to be portrayed on television. When I first heard his remarks, I thought that they were a recipe for unfounded optimism, but he has taken a personal interest in Somaliland and expressed concern that the good news about achievements in the area has not found its way on to our television screens.
Last week, the School of Oriental and African Studies in London organised a seminar on media reporting in the Horn of Africa. I commend the college for an excellent seminar that led to some good debate. A point made strongly was the prevalence of the "lighthouse" approach to reporting: a light flashes on to one area, part of the world or topic for a moment, and then flashes off.
I commented in a contribution that all of us in politics —I suspect that the Minister will agree that not only the Opposition have this experience—live in an atmosphere where the light flashes on and off just as rapidly in domestic politics. When it comes to Somalia, the problem


is that images showing disaster in Mogadishu flash on to our screens every now and then, while images showing positive events in the north are extremely rare.
We have seen a sad piece of history. The people of the former British protectorate entered a quick marriage with the people of the former Italian protectorate. For a short period at an early stage, President Egal was Prime Minister in that united country. Over the years, however, the terrible human rights violations that occurred under Siad Bane, and then the civil war, have led Somalis in this country to find it difficult to contemplate the idea of returning to a single Somalia. They also find it extremely worrying that the coverage of debate is between the two factions in the south, while the north is totally ignored.
The lighthouse may flash back on to Somaliland in the immediate future. Is the Minister aware of something of which I learned just before coming into the Chamber—the declaration of a water crisis in Somaliland, made by the presidency in a press release only yesterday? The recent problems of water shortage are now becoming acute and, coupled with the neglect of the past 10 years of civil war, which have rendered engines at most boreholes inoperative due to disrepair and, in some cases, destruction, they are now bringing the country close to another crisis.
If the Minister is aware of that, will he explain the position? If not, will he undertake to look into that news? It is argued that there is an urgent need to deal with the cost of the rehabilitation of boreholes for an initial period of 20 days, in the hope that the long rains will satisfy water demand in the longer term.
The other day, I jumped from my seat when I saw a television programme, which I hope the Minister saw, by an independent news agency, Front Line News, presented by George Alagiah on BBC television. For the first time, the whole country was depicted, and we saw the dotted line showing the difference between the north and south in the figure seven. I am glad to see that the Minister has a map that reflects that distinction in greater detail than the BBC normally does, and that he comes to this debate well prepared and well informed.
It was almost a physical shock to see that portrayed, yet request after request from the all-party group and others has gone unheard. We have pleaded for the reality of the situation to be recognised. It is depressing that it was not a mainstream BBC programme, but produced by an independent contributor. I suspect that, had it been a hard news night with major news in Bosnia or the United Kingdom, that programme would not have seen the light of day. However, let us be thankful for small mercies, and grateful for the fact that it was shown. One of the producers of the programme, Anna-Wynn Roberts, summarised the situation of the inhabitants of Somaliland thus:
They feel very let down by Britain in terms of aid, and as President Egal told us, they are receiving no aid from other countries due to a tendency to defer to the old colonial power. However, many do have rather good memories of Britain's colonial rule and speak of Britain with great fondness.
I know that Ministers are sympathetic, and that some effort has been made to send aid, but we need to go beyond that —to help with infrastructure and to support the Administration, so as to make what has been a minor miracle into the major miracle of a country re-establishing itself with a positive Government.
Only a few months ago, there was an exhibition in this

House in which the images captured by the camera of Hamish Wilson showed the efforts being made in training and education. They showed images of Somaliland at peace, as well as the liberation of Hargeisa and the destruction that the war has caused. I hope that those images and the images shown on television recently will elicit a greater response from the Government.
I have already said that other countries look to Britain to take a lead—that at least is the expectation expressed to me by the United States Under-Secretary of State. He told me that the Americans look to Britain, because of its historic interest, to take a lead in Somaliland.
The Somalis in this country feel that they have contributed by serving in the Army and the Navy ever since the turn of the century. The Somali community in Cardiff, which I know well, has been there for 80 or 90 years, and the Somalis believe that their service in wars up to and including the Falklands and the Gulf should be recognised by Britain. We should put pressure on the international community to recognise what has been achieved in Somaliland.
Like my hon. Friend, one of the members of the Anglo-Somali Society has reported back on the difficulties caused by UNOSOM and other UN organisations being late with police pay. I am sure that the Minister recognises that, in the volatile north, that can cause problems. I know that the British Government have had to pressurise other Governments to come up with the share of finance for mine clearance that they have promised to pay.
Demobilisation and resettlement must be effected quickly if the fears expressed by President Egal are not to be borne out in practice. Moreover, the reconstruction of roads, which would help the economy to take off, would be a great help.

Mr. Worthington: By allowing me to intervene, my hon. Friend gives me a chance to add something that I missed earlier. I want to pay tribute to the group of Zimbabweans who are undertaking the extremely difficult task of safeguarding the weaponry that has been given up, and of planning the rehabilitation of the militia. It might appear an extremely simple task voluntarily to disarm former soldiers, but we cannot even cope with that, so I hope that the Minister will agree to press for more funds for the Zimbabwean team.

Mr. Michael: I am glad to endorse my hon. Friend's comments. He covered so many issues that it is not surprising if he left out one. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
I want to underline one or two pleas before I close. It must be frustrating for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome not to be able to speak in the debate because of the burdens of office. Were he able to speak, I am sure that he would do so eloquently; in any case, his attendance is silently eloquent of his interest.
The Republic of Somaliland requests a recognition by Britain that resolutions do not guarantee the delivery of financial assistance. I am sure that the Minister can easily endorse that. Not only Somaliland but many Somalis here would appreciate it if the British Government, either via the British high commissioner in Nairobi or via New York, would play a more distinct role in directing in the work of UNOSOM and the United Nations Development Programme, in the interests of Somaliland. There is a lack


of information from UNOSOM about the expenditure that will be available for Somaliland, as distinct from the south or from Somalia in general.
President Egal received a letter stating:
UNOSOM has not got budgetary resources for demobilisation activities, but a proposal is currently being considered by the General Assembly.
The letter was dated 23 February, and it goes right to the heart of the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the demobilisation efforts should be underwritten and urgently endorsed before things start to break up again. The danger is that such efforts may teeter unless they are provided with immediate help.
I have referred to resources for police salaries. Until recently, funds from UNOSOM were not known to be available beyond April; were they to be cut off, there would untold consequences. I hope that the Minister can tell us about that. If he cannot, I hope that the British Government will strongly take up the issue with the United Nations and UNOSOM.
Does the Minister agree with my hon. Friend's eloquent point that there is a need to work to promote stability and rehabilitation within existing civic structures? Will he press for the United Nations to end the skewing of funds towards the south, and to build on the foundations established in the north—foundations of hope that may prove a model for other parts of Somalia and of the Horn of Africa?
In the longer term, it is important that there be an expression of the wishes of the people of Somaliland for their own future. The referendum has been wisely delayed for the moment; if one is undertaken, it is important that the UN and the international community be able to recognise it as a valid statement of the views of the people of Somaliland. Our problem hitherto has been that parliamentary organisations cannot help, because there is no parliament there.
Will the Minister try to ensure that Britain and the international community give the Republic of Somaliland some light at the end of the tunnel and a way to establish the view of its people, so that they can resolve the situation in which they find themselves? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that that should not be an issue now, but I hope that it can be resolved at some time in the future.
Will the Government seek to be a broker with regional and European countries to make progress towards some agreement? Will they, alone or with other countries, seek to build on the work of the NGOs, and accept the view that we have been pressing for some time, that we must build on the administration and the police and proceed with disarmament, demobilisation and the encouragement of economic development? That should be done in advance of any recognition of, a Government or a resolution of the issue of the birth of a new state.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to some of those points. I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for his initiative in initiating the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I welcome this opportunity to respond to the comments on Somalia by the hon. Member for

Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I congratulate him on making himself a considerable expert on the subject and I also congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has been an established expert on the subject for some years.
I am glad to see that the people of Somalia have two Opposition spokesmen. They certainly have one spokesman on the Government side in my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). There is much expertise in the House on this subject.
Before I respond to the debate, may I say that I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on overseas development, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and all other hon. Members were relieved to know that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome got safely back to Britain. It was a worrying moment for all of us and I thought keenly about the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend at that time. I am pleased that the experience in no way seems to have dampened the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for Somalia or his determination to continue to work to assist its people, particularly those in the north-west of the country which has so exercised the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others.
Hon. Members are right to draw the House's attention to the needs of Somalis as they strive to rebuild their country, a process which I hope to show in my brief speech the Government are assisting in no small measure.
Over recent months, the United Nations intervention in Somalia has been the subject of much criticism which we have heard repeated in the debate. I heartily agree that there are certainly lessons to be learned from the UN's experience in Somalia as a whole and not only in the north-western part. However, even the most vociferous critics have to accept that the involvement has meant that hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved and significant humanitarian and political progress has been made. Those are important achievements for which the United Nations can rightly take considerable credit. However, I accept the strictures on other activities that have been voiced in the debate.
Following the decision of the US and a number of other troop contributors to withdraw by the end of March, a new Security Council resolution, adopted on 4 February, gave a reduced UN force of up to 22,000 troops a mandate to protect ports and airports, keep open supply routes for humanitarian aid, take forward reorganisation of the police and judiciary and assist with the repatriation of refugees and the supply of emergency relief. That is the current role of UNOSOM.
The resolution also made it clear that although the international community remains ready to assist the people of Somalia to rebuild their country, the onus for that lies firmly in the hands of the Somalis, as has been acknowledged in the debate. It will be for them to show that they are ready to work together and for them to provide a safe and secure environment in which reconciliation and redevelopment can take place.
It is surely right that the solution to the problems of Somalia should be agreed and implemented by the Somali people themselves. The Government will continue to work closely with our partners in the United Nations and with those in the field in support of that approach. I hope to say more about that shortly.


The United Nations has brokered many meetings between the warring factions. An agreement reached in Addis Ababa early last year came to nothing. A further political conference in Addis Ababa in December also failed to reach agreement, and the year ended on a decidedly gloomy note.
However, last month's Nairobi agreement has bought a small degree of hope. An agreement was also struck on Lower Juba, the centre of the famine in 1992, and the scene of much of the recent inter-clan fighting.
We have now seen clear indications that there is a will among the Somali leaders to reach a political settlement. It is important that the follow-up meeting in Mogadishu on 25 April should prove to be a further step towards the formation of a national Government in Somalia.
The international community, through the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the Horn of Africa Standing Committee, has worked tirelessly, often behind the scenes, to try to help the Somali people along the path to political reconciliation. Support for those efforts is the way ahead. Ultimately, only the people of Somalia themselves can bring about the peace and stability that they seek.
I refer to a specific point made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, and agree that the United Nations Development Programme's office of procurement services—the Zimbabwean team working with the Egal Administration—has done an extremely good job. We expect soon specific proposals for assistance with demobilisation and reintegration of the militia. We are certainly ready to help and we will urge the United Nations and other donors to do the same.
The security situation remains a major area of concern. Developments in both the political and humanitarian fields will be at risk unless security on the ground can be improved. We have been particularly worried about the security of British non-governmental organisation staff in Somalia, and officials in London and in the field continue to work closely with NGOs in Britain on that issue. British and Irish NGOs have been active throughout the crisis, working in a difficult and dangerous environment to bring help to thousands of Somalis. The hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie and for Cardiff, South and Penarth and the House will join me in paying tribute to the commitment and bravery of both their expatriate and Somali staff.
Somalia is not at all an easy place in which to work. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie observed, banditry and armed gangs are prevalent. Local authorities have to take a leading part in working with the international community to establish a secure environment. Only then will it be possible to move ahead with much-needed reconstruction and rehabilitation.
In those circumstances, all agencies face difficulty in operating, and it is true that the work of UN agencies has been variable. Some have made a valuable contribution, but we have been frustrated by the performance of others. The United Kingdom has continually urged UNOSOM and UN agencies to improve their performance and to put greater emphasis on the wider relief effort outside the capital, including the north-west.
We understand that it is the UN's intention to establish a mine clearance training establishment in Mogadishu for

Somalis throughout the country and that it hopes to increase local involvement in mine clearing. Fourteen mine-clearing initiatives are under way.

Mr. Worthington: Mine clearance was under way in the north, but, now that it has been centralised in Mogadishu, it has stopped in the north. I confidently predict that there will be no mine clearance in the north this year.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which emphasises his earlier observation. We urgently and consistently press international donors and agencies to recognise the needs of the north-west that the hon. Gentleman described.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A meeting in the House that we organised jointly with the Anglo-Somali Society was attended by someone who had been directly involved with mine-clearance operations in the north. He made the point that moving the operation to the south had stopped progress in the north, which is precisely where progress was being made. That characterises so much of the United Nations approach.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for adding grist to his hon. Friend's mill.
I shall say a few words about the British Government's recognition of the need to help the people of Somalia as they strive to return their country to normality. I shall speak of Somalia in general and then come to the areas of the north-west.
In the absence of a national government, we have no mission in Somalia. However, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in London maintain regular contacts with a broad spectrum of visiting and expatriate Somalis. We also keep in regular touch with the United Nations and other international bodies involved in the Somali problem. Staff from our missions in Nairobi and Addis Ababa continue to pay regular visits to Somalia. Our high commission in Nairobi covers central and south Somalia, while the embassy in Addis Ababa is responsible for the north-west. That arrangement takes account of the access routes to Hargeisa and Mogadishu, and is in line with the arrangements of NGOs and agencies. In addition, an NGO liaison officer has been appointed for the north-west to develop new programmes with international and local NGOs in health and education.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie expressed particular concern, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, about the plight of Somalis in the north-west, on which I have already commented. We understand and share his concerns that the interests of that region sometimes get forgotten, and must not be so. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to restate the Government's position on the self-proclaimed secession of north-west Somalia. We believe that the future of Somalia must be decided by its people as a whole. The north-west should play its full part in the emerging constitutional dimension.
We hope that the Administration will participate fully in the forthcoming Mogadishu meeting. That is surely the way forward. We recognise the progress that has been made by the Egal Administration, and have made it clear that we are willing to join the rebuilding process. Since May 1991, we have provided almost £5 million of emergency assistance to the north-west. As hon. Members


know, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited north-west Somalia last summer in connection with her aid responsibilities. British aid is funding NGOs and UN relief agencies, not only in Hargeisa but throughout the region.
With UNICEF, our assistance is helping to re-establish water supplies in the Toghdeer region. We have supported Action Aid's programme in Sanaag since 1992, which is helping to establish water supplies and livestock services crucial to the local economy. The hon. Gentleman has, of course, judged the value of Action Aid's work at first hand and will be pleased to know that, since his eventful visit, we have agreed to continue funding throughout the whole of 1994.
We are also supporting Save the Children with local health authorities to establish health services throughout the region. We have provided funds for an important mine-clearance operation, as I have mentioned, on which hon. Members have commented. That has successfully cleared mines from strategic locations in and around Hargeisa, although I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. In short, our assistance has made, and will continue to make, a vital contribution in north-west Somalia.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to police assistance. In conjunction with UNOSOM and the local authorities, we are helping with the development of a police force in the region. Two missions have been sent. They have been somewhat hampered by some problems and unrealistic expectations among the Somalis, and progress has been slower than we had hoped. Nevertheless, a small team of officers will go to north-west Somalia shortly to work on training. We are also ready to help with equipment and building repairs.
I will say a few words about the declaration of a water crisis. We are very concerned about water problems and reports of cholera outbreaks and we certainly stand ready to assist in that area.
Our working relations with the north-west are not in any way dependent on recognition of the referendum on independence or any recognition of that kind. Irrespective of that, as I have said, we have consistently urged all the international donors to pay much more attention to the north-western area, and we will continue to do so. We need UNOSOM to play a much more strategic and co-ordinating

role in that region: I quite agree with that view. We shall also press the point in the Somali aid co-ordinating body meeting which is now taking place in Nairobi. One of the issues that we intend to raise there is the need for a devolved budget.
Somalia is at a crossroads. The last three years have left the country's infrastructure in ruins, and its people with no institutions of government. The international community is prepared to assist the Somalis in rebuilding their country. To enable that to happen, the Somalis must show that they are prepared to work together to provide a secure environment and a measure of stability. Her Majesty's Government will do all that they can to encourage and support progress towards that end.
Let me end with a quote from a speech made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development in a debate on Somalia that took place in this House some two years ago, in the early days of United Nations humanitarian intervention. She said:
We hope that Somali leaders themselves will also have learnt from recent events that the international community can provide the assistance which is so desperately needed only if they also commit themselves to a policy of peaceful resolution of their disputes."—[Official Report, 12 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 1090.]
That message is still valid in the context of the present day. I am sure that all hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, will wish to join me in urging the Somali people to seize this opportunity to return peace and stability to their country.
I have been able to comment briefly on only some of the important points raised by both hon. Members, and I apologise if I have not covered all the points that they wished me to cover. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be reading the report of tonight's debate, and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will be visiting her in due course. I know that she will be able specifically to answer his detailed comments during that visit. I will invite her —and I know that she will respond—to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and to comment on his remarks more fully than I have been able to tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Nine o'clock.